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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6635 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BERNARD GIBSON, SR., Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6635 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BERNARD GIBSON, SR., Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Gi..
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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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