Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. McArn, 97-7316 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7316 Visitors: 36
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7316 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EARNEST MCARN, Defendant - Appellant.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
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                            UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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