USA v. Michael Cupp, No. 18-30254 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-30254 Document: 00514640620 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 18-30254 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 13, 2018 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee v. MICHAEL THOMAS CUPP, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:14-CR-15-1 Before JOLLY, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Thomas Cupp, federal prisoner # 17129-035, was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) after he pleaded guilty to failing to comply with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for immediate release from the 60-month sentence he is serving. Cupp argues that he is entitled to immediate release because the retroactive application of SORNA violates the Ex Post Facto Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 18-30254 Document: 00514640620 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/13/2018 No. 18-30254 Clause, his continued incarceration violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and federal jurisdiction is lacking. The district court has not yet adjudicated Cupp’s pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction and sentence for violating SORNA. Thus, his motion for immediate release was a constructive motion to amend his § 2255 motion, cf. United States v. Riascos, 76 F.3d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1996), which the district court implicitly denied, see Norman v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1021-22 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s denial of Cupps’s motion to amend his § 2255 motion, however, is a nonfinal order. See Askanase v. Livingwell, Inc., 981 F.2d 807, 809-10 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider his interlocutory appeal. See id. Cupp’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Cupp’s motion asking us to respond to his appellate brief is DENIED as unnecessary. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
