Background
David Lozano-Cardenas filed a notice of appeal following a district court proceeding. He sought a sentence reduction under Section eighteen U.S.C. thirty-five eighty-two C and requested the appointment of counsel. The district court denied his motion for counsel, and the magistrate judge denied his letter-motions.
The court’s reasoning
The court examined its jurisdiction sua sponte and determined that no final order regarding a sentence reduction had been entered on the docket. Under Section twenty-eight U.S.C. twelve ninety-one, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over final decisions of district courts. The court cited United States versus Renfro and Donaldson versus Ducote to establish that appellate courts lack jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal magistrate judges unless the parties have consented. There was no evidence that Lozano-Cardenas consented to proceed before the magistrate judge.
The courts of appeals . . . have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.
28 U.S.C. § 1291
What it means going forward
The dismissal prevents Lozano-Cardenas from challenging the magistrate judge’s denial of his motions in the appellate court. The motion for counsel is rendered moot by the dismissal of the appeal.