Filed: May 03, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7767 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRIAN STEPP, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-99-24, CA-00-862-2) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7767 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRIAN STEPP, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-99-24, CA-00-862-2) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7767
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BRIAN STEPP,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
District Judge. (CR-99-24, CA-00-862-2)
Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Stepp, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Brian Stepp seeks to appeal an order of the magistrate judge
denying his request for a copy of the transcript of his criminal
proceedings. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction be-
cause the order is not appealable. This court may exercise juris-
diction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and cer-
tain 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, deny leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, 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