Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Moultry, 99-6540 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6540
Filed: Jun. 23, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6540 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus REAON O’NEIL MOULTRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-28-MU, CA-97-556) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 23, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 99-6540



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


REAON O’NEIL MOULTRY,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-93-28-MU, CA-97-556)


Submitted:   June 17, 1999                 Decided:   June 23, 1999


Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Reaon O’Neil Moultry, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Reaon O’Neil Moultry appeals the district court’s order deny-

ing his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999)

motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the

order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only

over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocu-

tory 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