Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Betancourt, 05-6035 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-6035 Visitors: 18
Filed: May 06, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6035 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WENDELL EDWARD BETANCOURT, a/k/a Shawn Nelson, a/k/a Fire, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CR-01-25; CA-04-77-3) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 6, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublish
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 05-6035



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


WENDELL EDWARD BETANCOURT, a/k/a Shawn Nelson,
a/k/a Fire,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (CR-01-25; CA-04-77-3)


Submitted:   April 28, 2005                    Decided:   May 6, 2005


Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Wendell Edward Betancourt, Appellant Pro Se.   Thomas Oliver
Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

          Wendell   E.   Betancourt   seeks   to   appeal   the   district

court’s order denying his motion for recusal.           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 order Betancourt seeks to

appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

collateral order.   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