Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Beach, 05-4431 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-4431 Visitors: 31
Filed: Aug. 23, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4431 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD JOHN BEACH, Defendant - Appellant. No. 05-4432 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD JOHN BEACH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-02-260-V) Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005 Before WI
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4431 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD JOHN BEACH, Defendant - Appellant. No. 05-4432 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD JOHN BEACH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-02-260-V) Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron Edmund Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, Interim United States Attorney, Kimlani S. Murray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Edward John Beach seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion to dismiss his trial counsel and adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying his motion to suppress evidence at his criminal trial. Although Beach was found guilty after a jury trial of various drug crimes, he has not yet been sentenced. 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). The orders Beach seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal materials are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 3 -
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