Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Gibson, 00-6635 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6635 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jun. 26, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6635 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BERNARD GIBSON, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR- 94-454-PJM) Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 26, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard G
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 00-6635



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


BERNARD GIBSON, SR.,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR-
94-454-PJM)


Submitted:   June 15, 2000                 Decided:   June 26, 2000


Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bernard Gibson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Bernard Gibson, Sr., appeals from the district court’s order

denying his motion for discovery of the commencement and termina-

tion dates of the grand jury that indicted him; the discovery

motion was filed in connection with his motion for a new trial

under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33.     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 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.   Accordingly, we 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