Filed: Apr. 27, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8233 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CASUAL BIANCA LYONS, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00312-BO-1) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Casual Bian
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8233 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CASUAL BIANCA LYONS, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00312-BO-1) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Casual Bianc..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8233
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CASUAL BIANCA LYONS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:03-cr-00312-BO-1)
Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Casual Bianca Lyons, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Casual Bianca Lyons seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying her motion for new counsel on her 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. 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 Lyons 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