USA v. Jacobs, No. 22-40514 (5th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-40514 Document: 00516635675 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-40514 Summary Calendar ____________ February 6, 2023 FILED Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Edward Todd Jacobs, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:17-CV-216 ______________________________ Before Stewart, Willett, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Edward Todd Jacobs, federal inmate # 19938-078, pleaded guilty to attempted arson and solicitation of murder for hire and was sentenced to concurrent 188-month terms of imprisonment. In 2017, Jacobs filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging the imposed sentences as violating his plea agreement, which was dismissed as time barred. Two years later, he moved _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-40514 Document: 00516635675 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2023 No. 22-40514 to reopen his § 2255 proceedings, which the district court construed as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion and denied. Jacobs then filed the instant motion to reconsider, in which he attacked his sentence on essentially the same grounds and again asked the district court to modify the judgment to comport with the plea agreement. The district court denied relief on the merits, and Jacobs has applied for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal that ruling. The district court’s consideration of Jacobs’s motion to reconsider on its merits was error because that motion was in effect a successive § 2255 motion, and Jacobs had not obtained authorization to proceed from this court. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 & n.4 (2005); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The district court thus had no jurisdiction to grant or deny relief. See Davis v. Sumlin, 999 F.3d 278, 279 (5th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, the district court’s order denying Jacobs’s motion to reconsider is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED with instructions to dismiss the motion for lack of jurisdiction. See Davis, 999 F.3d at 280. Jacobs’s COA application is DENIED AS MOOT. 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.
