Filed: Mar. 04, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1791 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ALAN B. FABIAN, Defendant – Appellant, JACKIE FABIAN, Claimant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00355-CCB-1) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 4, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1791 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ALAN B. FABIAN, Defendant – Appellant, JACKIE FABIAN, Claimant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00355-CCB-1) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 4, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1791
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ALAN B. FABIAN,
Defendant – Appellant,
JACKIE FABIAN,
Claimant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:07-cr-00355-CCB-1)
Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 4, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan B. Fabian, Jackie Fabian, Appellants Pro Se. Jonathan
Biran, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jackie and Alan Fabian seek to appeal the district
court’s order granting the Government’s emergency motion,
clarifying that the final order of forfeiture did not extinguish
the lien on a parcel of real property, and noting that
contingent relief may be appropriate depending on the outcome of
the collateral litigation. This court may exercise jurisdiction
only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order the Fabians seek to
appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory
or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny the Fabians’ motion
for appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. 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