Filed: Jan. 07, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7316 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EARNEST MCARN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-94-83, CA-96-1637-4-22) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earnest McAr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7316 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EARNEST MCARN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-94-83, CA-96-1637-4-22) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earnest McArn..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7316
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EARNEST MCARN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-94-83, CA-96-1637-4-22)
Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Earnest McArn, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order informing Appel-
lant that he has thirty-four days to file an opposition to the
Appellee's motion for summary judgment on Appellant's remaining 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997) claims. We dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appeal-
able. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,
28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); 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 deny a certificate of appealability and 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