Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Butler, 00-7672 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7672 Visitors: 234
Filed: Mar. 01, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7672 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES A. BUTLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-91-44) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: March 1, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 00-7672



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JAMES A. BUTLER,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-91-44)


Submitted:   February 22, 2001             Decided:   March 1, 2001


Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James A. Butler, Appellant Pro Se.  Gurney Wingate Grant, II,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     James A. Butler appeals the district court’s disposition of

several motions he submitted pertaining to his pending 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion.   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.

     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