Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Dwight Spears, 95-6087 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6087 Visitors: 50
Filed: Jun. 22, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 59 F.3d 168 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwight SPEARS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-6087. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: May 18, 1995. Decided: June 22, 1995. Dwight Spears, Appellant Pro Se. Rob
More

59 F.3d 168
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee,
v.
Dwight SPEARS, Defendant--Appellant.

No. 95-6087.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 1995.
Decided: June 22, 1995.

Dwight Spears, Appellant Pro Se. Robert James Conrad, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, NC, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to recuse the district judge in his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 (1988) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

2

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We deny Appellant's motion for 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.

3

DISMISSED.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer