Filed: Feb. 17, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7270 DENNIS LEE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CR-02-806; CA-04-1665-4-25) Submitted: January 21, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7270 DENNIS LEE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CR-02-806; CA-04-1665-4-25) Submitted: January 21, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7270
DENNIS LEE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CR-02-806; CA-04-1665-4-25)
Submitted: January 21, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005
Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Lee Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his emergency motion for a protective order and
granting the Government additional time to respond to his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S.
541 (1949). The orders Williams seeks to appeal are neither final
orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. 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
- 2 -