Filed: May 07, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-5786 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARILOU F. HULING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge; Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate Judge. (CR-95-78) Submitted: April 30, 1996 Decided: May 7, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-5786 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARILOU F. HULING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge; Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate Judge. (CR-95-78) Submitted: April 30, 1996 Decided: May 7, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-5786
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARILOU F. HULING,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge; Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate Judge. (CR-95-78)
Submitted: April 30, 1996 Decided: May 7, 1996
Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew M. Sacks, SACKS & SACKS, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.
Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, John Phillip Ellington,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order affirming her
conviction, but remanding the case to the magistrate judge to
determine whether a presentence report is required. We dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appeal-
able. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,1
and certain interlocutory and collateral orders.2 In criminal
cases, final judgment means that sentence has been entered.3 The
parties acknowledge in their briefs that this appeal has brought to
a halt the resentencing proceeding before the magistrate judge. 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
1
28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988).
2
28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. ,
337 U.S. 541 (1949).
3
Berman v. United States,
302 U.S. 211, 212-13 (1937).
2