Filed: Dec. 20, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4604 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. MAKUSHAMARI GOZO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00393-CCB-1) Submitted: December 16, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013 Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Makusham
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4604 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. MAKUSHAMARI GOZO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00393-CCB-1) Submitted: December 16, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013 Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Makushama..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4604
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MAKUSHAMARI GOZO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:12-cr-00393-CCB-1)
Submitted: December 16, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Makushamari Gozo, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Marshall Nothstein,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Makushamari Gozo seeks to appeal the district court’s
denial of various motions made in the context of his criminal
proceedings, including motions to suppress and for dismissal of
the indictments. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over
final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory
and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-
46 (1949). The orders Gozo seeks to appeal are neither final
orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2