United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 8, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-50507
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAMON RAMIREZ-GOMEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:06-CV-78
USDC No. 3:04-CR-1321-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, GARZA, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ramon Ramirez-Gomez (Ramirez), federal prisoner # 30871-198,
was convicted of illegal reentry following deportation and
sentenced to 50 months of imprisonment. He filed a motion to
vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. Prior to ruling on the merits of Ramirez’s motion, the
district court denied Ramirez’s motion for the appointment of
counsel, struck a pleading exceeding the page limitation, and
ordered Ramirez to cure certain deficiencies in his pleadings.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 06-50507
-2-
Ramirez now moves this court for a certificate of appealability
(COA) to appeal the district court’s determination on these
interlocutory issues. Ramirez also moves this court for
authority to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.
“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). The district court’s orders denying the
appointment of counsel, striking a pleading, and ordering Ramirez
to cure deficiencies are non-appealable interlocutory orders.
See Thomas v. Scott, 47 F.3d 713, 714-16 (5th Cir. 1995); Brinar
v. Williamson, 245 F.3d 515, 516-18 (5th Cir. 2001). This court
is without jurisdiction to consider Ramirez’s appeal.
Accordingly, Ramirez’s motion for a COA is denied, and the appeal
is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Ramirez’s motion for
authorization to proceed IFP on appeal is also denied.
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.