United States v. Rodriguez-Renteria , 101 F. App'x 990 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS           July 1, 2004
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-51121
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JESUS HERMILLO RODRIGUEZ-RENTERIA,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. P-03-CR-128-2
    --------------------
    Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Jesus Hermillo Rodriguez-Renteria (“Rodriguez”) entered a
    conditional guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute
    marijuana, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
    § 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment and four
    years’ supervised release.   Rodriguez reserved the right to appeal
    the denial of his motion to suppress.
    It is the duty of this court to raise jurisdictional issues
    sua sponte, if necessary.    Mosley v. Cozby, 
    813 F.2d 659
    , 660 (5th
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
    Cir. 1987).                    The magistrate judge recommended that Rodriguez’s
    motion to suppress be denied, and Rodriguez objected.                      In their
    supplemental briefs requested by this court, both parties concede
    that the district court has not entered an order regarding the
    motion to suppress and that this issue is not ripe for appeal.                  See
    28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Raddatz, 
    447 U.S. 667
    ,
    681-82 (1980).
    The district court has not ruled on the suppression motion,
    and the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the motion be denied
    is not appealable to this court.                    See United States v. Cooper, 
    135 F.3d 960
    , 961 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Trufant v. Autocon, Inc., 
    729 F.2d 308
    , 309 (5th Cir. 1984)).                  Accordingly, Rodriguez’s appeal,
    which addresses only suppression issues, is DISMISSED for lack of
    jurisdiction.
    APPEAL DISMISSED.
    G:\opin-sc\03-51121a.opn.wpd                    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-51121

Citation Numbers: 101 F. App'x 990

Judges: Smith, Demoss, Stewart

Filed Date: 7/1/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024