United States v. Rodriguez-Renteria

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 1, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-51121
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JESUS HERMILLO RODRIGUEZ-RENTERIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-03-CR-128-2
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jesus Hermillo Rodriguez-Renteria (“Rodriguez”) entered a
conditional guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute
marijuana, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment and four
years’ supervised release. Rodriguez reserved the right to appeal
the denial of his motion to suppress.
It is the duty of this court to raise jurisdictional issues
sua sponte, if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th

-- 1 of 2 --

2 G:\opin-sc\03-51121a.opn.wpd
Cir. 1987). The magistrate judge recommended that Rodriguez’s
motion to suppress be denied, and Rodriguez objected. In their
supplemental briefs requested by this court, both parties concede
that the district court has not entered an order regarding the
motion to suppress and that this issue is not ripe for appeal. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667,
681-82 (1980).
The district court has not ruled on the suppression motion,
and the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the motion be denied
is not appealable to this court. See United States v. Cooper, 135
F.3d 960, 961 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Trufant v. Autocon, Inc., 729
F.2d 308, 309 (5th Cir. 1984)). Accordingly, Rodriguez’s appeal,
which addresses only suppression issues, is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --