Filed: Nov. 23, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7117 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMES SCOTT, JR., Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00066-HEH-1; 3:08-cv-00539-HEH) Submitted: November 10, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7117 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMES SCOTT, JR., Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00066-HEH-1; 3:08-cv-00539-HEH) Submitted: November 10, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James S..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7117
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES SCOTT, JR.,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:07-cr-00066-HEH-1; 3:08-cv-00539-HEH)
Submitted: November 10, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Scott, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Scott, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing two of Scott’s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2009) claims and referring the third to a magistrate judge for
further proceedings. This court may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Scott 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