United States v. Salahuddin

Case: 23-20461 Document: 84-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

____________

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

No. 23-20461

Summary Calendar FILED ____________ July 30, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Babar Javed Butt,

Defendant, Tajuddin Salahuddin,

Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-452-1

______________________________

Before Wiener, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Tajuddin Salahuddin has appealed from the district court’s denial of his motion for appointment of counsel. The Government argues that we do Case: 23-20461 Document: 84-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/30/2024

No. 23-20461 not have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal because the denial of Salahuddin’s motion is not a final appealable order and does not fall under the collateral order doctrine.

We have jurisdiction over an appeal from (1) a decision that is final under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; (2) a decision that is deemed final due to a jurisprudential exception or that has been properly certified as final under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b); and (3) interlocutory orders that are of the type noted in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), or that have been certified for appeal by the district court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Askanase v. Livingwell, Inc., 981 F.2d 807, 809-10 (5th Cir. 1993).

The order denying Salahuddin’s motion to appoint counsel is not a final order and does not fall within any of the classes set forth in § 1292(a). The district court did not certify the decision for appeal under Rule 54(b) or § 1292(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The order also is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine. See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978); Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 260 (1984); Williams v. Catoe, 946 F.3d 278, 279-81 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). We lack jurisdiction to consider the instant appeal.

Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.