Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Milton, 00-6858 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6858 Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6858 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GREGORY ALLEN MILTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-70074, CA-00-31-7) Submitted: October 10, 2000 Decided: October 19, 2000 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Al
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 00-6858



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


GREGORY ALLEN MILTON,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CR-95-70074, CA-00-31-7)


Submitted:   October 10, 2000             Decided:   October 19, 2000


Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gregory Allen Milton, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack Bondurant,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Gregory Allen Milton appeals the district court’s order deny-

ing his motion to reconsider its earlier denial of his motion to

amend his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.

2000).    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