Gonzales v. USA

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JACOB MICHAEL GONZALES,
#40366511,
§
§
§
Movant, 	§
§
v. 	§
§
No. 3:26-cv-0113-B
(No. 3:24-cr-0484-B-3)
§
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	§
§
Respondent. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se Movant Jacob Michael Gonzales, a prisoner at the Limestone County Detention
Center CI, filed this motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
See generally 3:26-cv-0113-B, Doc. 1, Mot. Vacate; 3:24-cr-0484-B, Doc. 89, Mot. Vacate. But
Gonzales’s direct appeal is still pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit. Therefore, the Court dismisses this civil action as premature.
I.
BACKGROUND
Gonzales pleaded guilty to two counts in his underlying criminal action: (1) conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and (2)
possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, aiding and abetting in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). See 3:24-cr-0484-B, Doc. 80, J., 1. On December 18, 2025, the
Court sentenced Gonzales to a total aggregate sentence of 188 months’ imprisonment. See id. at 2.
Case 3:26-cv-00113-B Document 3 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
Gonzales filed a notice of appeal on December 30, 2025. See generally 3:24-cr-0484-B, Doc. 83, Notice
Appeal. At this time, his direct appeal remains pending before the Fifth Circuit.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
“A defendant cannot 	collaterally 	attack 	his conviction until 	it 	has 	been 	affirmed
on direct appeal.” United States v. Bernegger, 661 F.3d 232, 241 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Fassler v. United
States, 858 F.2d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1988)); see also Lopez v. United States, 2018 WL 3448557, at *1
(N.D. Tex. June 25, 2018), rec. adopted, 2018 WL 3438908 (N.D. Tex. July 17, 2018). When
a § 2255 motion is filed during the pendency of a direct appeal, it is “not entitled to consideration
on the merits.” Jones v. United States, 453 F.2d 351, 352 (5th Cir. 1972) (per curiam). This is so
because the “disposition of the appeal may render the [§ 2255] motion moot.” United States v.
Fantozzi, 90 F. App’x 73, 74 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). When a movant seeks § 2255 relief while
his direct appeal is pending, the district court should decline to address the § 2255 motion and
dismiss the action without prejudice. See Bernegger, 661 F3d at 241 (“The District Court correctly
determined that Bernegger’s habeas corpus petition was not ripe for review.”); see also Cruz v. United
States, 2013 WL 459932, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2013) (recommending the § 2255 motion be
summarily dismissed without prejudice because it was filed while his direct appeal was pending), rec.
adopted, 2013 WL 462354 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2013); Canales v. United States, 2007 WL 646189, at
*1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2007) (“[T]his case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction
because this court has no jurisdiction to consider this petition while he has a direct appeal of his
criminal conviction pending.”).
Case 3:26-cv-00113-B Document 3 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
III.
ANALYSIS
Here, Gonzales filed his notice of appeal in this Court on December 30, 2025. At this time,
his direct appeal is still pending before the Fifth Circuit. See United States v. Gonzales, No. 26-10011
(5th Cir.). Gonzales’s § 2255 motion—filed in this Court on January 14, 2026—was therefore
prematurely filed. Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Gonzales’s petition.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Jacob Michael Gonzales’s motion to vacate, set aside,
or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED: January 16, 2026.
_________________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00113-B Document 3 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>