United States v. Williams ( 2022 )

Case: 21-11094 Document: 00516456591 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 1, 2022
No. 21-11094
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Christopher Williams,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:07-CR-54-1
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Christopher Williams, federal prisoner # 35731-177, appeals the
district court’s order denying his motion to compel defense counsel to
surrender his case file regarding his conviction, after a jury trial, of possessing
a controlled substance, possessing with the intent to distribute more than five
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-11094 Document: 00516456591 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2022
No. 21-11094
grams of crack cocaine, unlawfully possessing a firearm in connection with a
drug-trafficking offense, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Williams stated that he sought his case files in order to prepare a motion to
vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
We must first examine the basis of our jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). We may only exercise
jurisdiction over final orders and certain interlocutory orders. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1291, 1292; Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir.
1988). Discovery orders generally are not appealable. Goodman v. Harris
Cnty., 443 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2006). Here, because the district court’s
order denying Williams’s motion to compel is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order, we lack jurisdiction to consider
his appeal from that order. See Dardar, 849 F.2d at 957.
Williams’s pro se brief suggests that he seeks authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion. In order to do so, Williams must first show that
his proposed claims were not raised in a prior § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(1); § 2255(h). He also must make a prima facie showing that the
claims rely on either “newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed
in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear
and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found
[him] guilty of the offense” or “a new rule of constitutional law, made
retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was
previously unavailable.” § 2255(h)(1)-(2); see § 2244(b)(3)(C). Williams
has not made such a showing.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED.
Williams’s motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion and
his motion for appointment of counsel are DENIED.
2