United States v. Lozano-Cardenas

── United States v. Lozano-Cardenas ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: June 10, 2026 Category: Direct Criminal Case: 25-40800 Document: 29-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-40800 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ June 10, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus David Lozano-Cardenas, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:23-CR-745-1 ______________________________ Before Southwick, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * David Lozano-Cardenas moves this court for appointment of counsel. This court, however, must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Lozano- Cardenas cannot appeal the denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), which was the judgment specified in his notice of _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-40800 Document: 29-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2026 No. 25-40800 appeal, because no such order was entered on the docket sheet. The district court denied Lozano-Cardenas’s motion for appointment of counsel after he filed his notice of appeal. Accordingly, the only order that can logically be encompassed by his notice of appeal is the magistrate judge’s denial of his letter-motions, or to the extent that his letters could be construed as motions for a sentence reduction, the magistrate judge’s denial of those motions. “The courts of appeals . . . have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Accordingly, unless the parties have consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, “appellate courts are without jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from” federal magistrate judges. United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 497, 500 (5th Cir. 1980); see Donaldson v. Ducote, 373 F.3d 622, 624 (5th Cir. 2004). There is no evidence that Lozano-Cardenas consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See Donaldson, 373 F.3d at 624. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See id.; Renfro, 620 F.2d at 500. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot. 2