Opinion
No. 07-5176.
Filed On: November 27, 2007.
BEFORE: Sentelle, Rogers, and Garland, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss and the opposition thereto, it is.
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss be granted. This court lacks jurisdiction over the district court's order denying the motion for entry of judgment in appellants' favor because the order did not end the litigation on the merits and therefore is not final. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Peralta v. U.S. Attorney's Office, 136 F.3d 169, 173 (D.C. Cir. 1998); see also Coleman v. Stanziani, 735 F.2d 118, 120 (3rd Cir. 1984). It is.
FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent appellants' opposition to the motion to the dismiss could be construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court's transfer of their petition to another district court, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. The district court did not abuse its discretion, see In re Tripati, 836 F.2d 1406, 1407 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (per curiam), by transferring appellants' petition to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which imposed appellants' sentences. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence . . . may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.").
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.