Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Hall, 99-6547 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6547 Visitors: 35
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6547 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARC PIERRE HALL, Defendant -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
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                             UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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