Filed: Aug. 29, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-10433 USDC No. 5:94-CR-069 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHONNAS J. EICKE, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas - August 15, 1995 Before GARWOOD, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659 , 660 (5th Cir. 1987). In
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-10433 USDC No. 5:94-CR-069 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHONNAS J. EICKE, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas - August 15, 1995 Before GARWOOD, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659 , 660 (5th Cir. 1987). In ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10433
USDC No. 5:94-CR-069
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHONNAS J. EICKE,
Defendant-Appellant.
---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
----------------------
August 15, 1995
Before GARWOOD, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its
own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby,
813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th
Cir. 1987). In this criminal proceeding, the defendant has filed
a notice of appeal from the district court's determination that
he is competent to stand trial. Federal appellate courts have
jurisdiction over appeals only from (1) final orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291; (2) orders that are deemed final due to jurisprudential
exception or that have been properly certified as final pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); and (3) interlocutory orders that fall
into specific classes, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), or that have been
properly certified for appeal by the district court, 28 U.S.C.
O R D E R
No. 95-10433
-2-
§ 1292(b). See Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co.,
849 F.2d 955, 957
(5th Cir. 1988); Save the Bay, Inc. v. United States Army,
639
F.2d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir. 1981). A decision is final when it
"ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the
court to do but execute the judgment." Coopers & Lybrand v.
Livesay,
437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978) (internal quotations and
citation omitted). The district court has not entered a final or
otherwise appealable order in this case, and we can discern no
basis for appellate jurisdiction. Thus, the motion for
transcripts is DENIED as moot and the appeal is DISMISSED.