Filed: Dec. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6547 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARC PIERRE HALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert E. Payne, District Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-95-5, CA-99-61-3) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 27, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6547 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARC PIERRE HALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert E. Payne, District Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-95-5, CA-99-61-3) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 27, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismiss..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-6547
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARC PIERRE HALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-95-5, CA-99-61-3)
Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 27, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Pierre Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Marc Pierre Hall appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion to expedite proceedings on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 1999) motion and for appointmnet of counsel. 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