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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6035 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WENDELL EDWARD BETANCOURT, a/k/a Shawn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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6035 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WENDELL EDWARD BETANCOURT, a/k/a Shawn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 unpublishe..
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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -