Filed: May 25, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6159 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALEJANDRO REYES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (CR-03-195-3; CA-04-914-3) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 25, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alejandro Reyes, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6159 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALEJANDRO REYES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (CR-03-195-3; CA-04-914-3) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 25, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alejandro Reyes, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6159
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALEJANDRO REYES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (CR-03-195-3; CA-04-914-3)
Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 25, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alejandro Reyes, Appellant Pro Se. N. George Metcalf, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Alejandro Reyes appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing one of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) claims but retaining
jurisdiction over his remaining claims. This court has
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). A final decision is one that “ends the
litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but
execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States,
324 U.S. 229, 233
(1945). When a district court dismisses fewer than all claims as
to the order, it is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. See Baird v. Palmer,
114 F.3d
39, 42 (4th Cir. 1997).
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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 -