Filed: Aug. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6997 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALANI OLUSEGUN ARAWOLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-97- 283-L, CA-00-66-L) Submitted: July 24, 2001 Decided: August 6, 2001 Before LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6997 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALANI OLUSEGUN ARAWOLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-97- 283-L, CA-00-66-L) Submitted: July 24, 2001 Decided: August 6, 2001 Before LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6997
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALANI OLUSEGUN ARAWOLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-97-
283-L, CA-00-66-L)
Submitted: July 24, 2001 Decided: August 6, 2001
Before LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alani Olusegun Arawole, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Manuelian,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Alani Olusegun Arawole appeals the district court order
denying his motion for leave to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2000) motion and the amended § 2255 motion. Arawole has also
filed a motion to stay district court proceedings pending the out-
come of this appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdic-
tion because the court’s 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). An order denying a motion for
leave to amend the § 2255 motion and the amended § 2255 motion is
neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral
order.
We deny a certificate of appealability, dismiss the appeal as
interlocutory, and deny the motion to stay as moot. 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