UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 97-50773
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CAROL JOHNENE MORRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-97-CR-10-ALL
May 5, 1999
Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carol Johnene Morris, now Texas prisoner #488243, seeks, pro
se, to appeal two pre-trial orders: on 29 August 1997, denying her
motion for recusal; and on 8 September 1997, denying her motion to
dismiss the indictment as violative of the Speedy Trial Act.
Morris was found guilty by a jury in November 1997. Our court
affirmed her conviction in late 1998. One of her claims on appeal
concerned the Speedy Trial Act claim presented now.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
This court has a duty to determine sua sponte whether it has
appellate jurisdiction. Mosely v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th
Cir. 1987). We have such jurisdiction over three types of appeals:
(1) final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291; (2) certain specific types of
interlocutory appeals, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a); and (3) an appeal in
which the district court has certified the question as final
pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b), 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Dardar v.
Lafourche Realty Co., Inc., 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988).
Morris’ appeal is not one of the three types of appeals over which
we have jurisdiction. See United States v. Gregory, 656 F.2d 1132,
1136 (5th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal for lack
of appellate jurisdiction. Morris’ motion for appointment of
counsel is DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED
2