Filed: Nov. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7264 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALEJANDRO DEJESUS HERNANDEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:91-cr-00139-CMH-3) Submitted: October 23, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alejandro DeJ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7264 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALEJANDRO DEJESUS HERNANDEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:91-cr-00139-CMH-3) Submitted: October 23, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alejandro DeJe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7264
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALEJANDRO DEJESUS HERNANDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:91-cr-00139-CMH-3)
Submitted: October 23, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alejandro DeJesus Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Bernard James
Apperson, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alejandro DeJesus Hernandez has filed a notice of
appeal. 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, 545-
46 (1949). In his notice of appeal, Hernandez does not
reference the order from which he is appealing. A review of the
district court’s docket sheet does not show any final order from
which Hernandez could take an appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We also deny as moot the
motion to dispense with the appendix. 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