Filed: Aug. 21, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6664 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANNIE MAE CASE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-116, CA-96-339-6-21-AK) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6664 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANNIE MAE CASE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-116, CA-96-339-6-21-AK) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per c..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6664
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANNIE MAE CASE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. William B. Traxler, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-95-116, CA-96-339-6-21-AK)
Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Annie Mae Case, Appellant Pro Se. Beattie B. Ashmore, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's margin order denying
Appellant's "Proposed Motion to Government For Noncompliance for
Enlargement of Time." We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdic-
tion because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292
(1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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