Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Williams, 04-7270 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-7270 Visitors: 25
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7270 DENNIS LEE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
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                            UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer