Filed: Jan. 15, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7378 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARVIN BREWER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-231-A, CA-95-178-1-V) Submitted: December 30, 1997 Decided: January 15, 1998 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7378 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARVIN BREWER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-231-A, CA-95-178-1-V) Submitted: December 30, 1997 Decided: January 15, 1998 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7378
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARVIN BREWER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief
District Judge. (CR-90-231-A, CA-95-178-1-V)
Submitted: December 30, 1997 Decided: January 15, 1998
Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marvin Brewer, Appellant Pro Se. William Mark Boyum, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismissing six of
seven claims contained in his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We dismiss the appeal for lack of juris-
diction because the order is not appealable. This court may exer-
cise jurisdiction only over final orders, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, see 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 therefore 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