Filed: Oct. 30, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7476 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN W. STEVENS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-90-310, CA-01-2814-7-13) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 30, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per cu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7476 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN W. STEVENS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-90-310, CA-01-2814-7-13) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 30, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per cur..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7476
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN W. STEVENS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-90-310, CA-01-2814-7-13)
Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 30, 2001
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John W. Stevens, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John W. Stevens seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his motion filed under Fed. R. Crim.
P. 35, which the district court properly construed as a motion
under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001).* We have reviewed the
record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the
reasoning of the district court. United States v. Stevens, Nos.
CR-90-310, CA-01-2814-7-13 (D.S.C. July 10, 2001). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
*
Generally, dismissals without prejudice are not appealable.
Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064,
1066 (4th Cir. 1993). We find, however, that the district court’s
order is a final, appealable order because the defect identified by
the district court must be cured by something more than an amend-
ment to the complaint. Id. at 1066-67.
2