Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Brewer, 97-7378 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-7378 Visitors: 23
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7378 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARVIN BREWER, Defendant - Appellant.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opin
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                            UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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