Filed: Apr. 18, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6099 ALLEN LEBEDUN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-1426) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 18, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allen Lebedun, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6099 ALLEN LEBEDUN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-00-1426) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 18, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allen Lebedun, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6099
ALLEN LEBEDUN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-00-1426)
Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 18, 2001
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Allen Lebedun, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Allen Lebedun appeals from a district court order dismissing
without prejudice his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). The court dismissed Lebedun’s
petition because he failed to pay the filing fee as directed.
Because Lebedun may proceed with this action in the district court
by complying with the court’s order, his appeal is interlocutory
and not subject to appellate review. See Domino Sugar Corp. v.
Sugar Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.
1993).
Accordingly, we deny Lebedun’s motion for relief from judg-
ment, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2