Filed: Sep. 17, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7061 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAMUEL ANTWAN MELVIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-99-157, CA-00-1133-1) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 17, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7061 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAMUEL ANTWAN MELVIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-99-157, CA-00-1133-1) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 17, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sa..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7061
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SAMUEL ANTWAN MELVIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-99-157, CA-00-1133-1)
Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 17, 2002
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel Antwan Melvin, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Antwan Melvin appeals the district court’s order
dismissing some claims in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion but
permitting one claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to
proceed. 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 as to all of
Melvin’s claims.
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory, and deny a certificate
of appealability. 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