Filed: Dec. 04, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7731 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DARWIN LEWIS TURNER, a/k/a Abbey, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00001-RLV-DCK-2) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 4, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7731 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DARWIN LEWIS TURNER, a/k/a Abbey, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00001-RLV-DCK-2) Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 4, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7731
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DARWIN LEWIS TURNER, a/k/a Abbey,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00001-RLV-DCK-2)
Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 4, 2009
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darwin Lewis Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darwin Lewis Turner filed a notice of appeal from a
pleading filed by his counsel informing the district court that
Turner was not eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to
Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). This court may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders of the district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders of the
district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949).
Because counsel’s pleading is not an appealable order, we
dismiss the appeal. 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