United States v. Abilgaziyev

Case: 25-40699 Document: 49-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/27/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED August 27, 2026 No. 25-40699 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Temirkhan Abilgaziyev, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:25-PO-2219-1 ______________________________ Before Stewart, Richman, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Following a bench trial before a magistrate judge, Temirkhan Abilgaziyev was convicted of unlawfully entering the United States and was sentenced to time served. Within 14 days of entry of judgment, Abilgaziyev filed a motion for new trial, as well as a notice of appeal directed to this court.

Case: 25-40699 Document: 49-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/27/2026

No. 25-40699

The attorney appointed to represent Abilgaziyev has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Abilgaziyev has not filed a response. Before turning to the merits of the appeal, we must examine the basis of our jurisdiction. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987).

Here, there are two impediments to our exercise of jurisdiction over the appeal. As an initial matter, the motion for new trial remains pending before the magistrate judge, and Abilgaziyev’s notice of appeal is thus ineffective to appeal the judgment of conviction and sentence until there is a ruling on the pending new trial motion. See United States v. Greenwood, 974 F.2d 1449, 1466 (5th Cir. 1992). While typically we would order a remand for the limited purpose of ruling on that motion, such action is inappropriate here because Abilgaziyev did not appeal the magistrate judge’s judgment to the district court and, as such, we lack appellate jurisdiction. See United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 497, 500 (5th Cir. 1980).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED, and counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is DENIED as moot.