22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4cc,MEMORANDUM Clifton Elias Howard, III appeals from the district court’s denial of his request for investigatory and expert services under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(l). We dismiss because the district court’s denial without prejudice was not a final, appealable order and the issue is now moot. At the time of the request at issue, Howard had not filed a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion raising any claims for relief. The district court denied the request on the ground that it was unable to make a finding that the requested services were necessary, as required by statute. The denial was without prejudice, and a review of the district court’s docket in case number CR-04-05234 discloses that Howard has subsequently filed a § 2255 motion collaterally attacking his conviction, along with a new request for expert and investigatory services. The district court’s denial without prejudice of Howard’s request under section § 3006A was not a final order conferring appellate jurisdiction upon this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Further, Howard’s subsequent request renders this appeal moot. DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4fe,

MEMORANDUM

Clifton Elias Howard, III appeals from the district court’s denial of his request for investigatory and expert services under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(l). We dismiss because the district court’s denial without prejudice was not a final, appealable order and the issue is now moot.

At the time of the request at issue, Howard had not filed a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion raising any claims for relief. The district court denied the request on the ground that it was unable to make a finding that the requested services were necessary, as required by statute. The denial was without prejudice, and a review of the district court’s docket in case number CR-04-05234 discloses that Howard has subsequently filed a § 2255 motion collaterally attacking his conviction, along with a new request for expert and investigatory services.

The district court’s denial without prejudice of Howard’s request under section § 3006A was not a final order conferring appellate jurisdiction upon this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Further, Howard’s subsequent request renders this appeal moot.

DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.