Filed: Feb. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7723 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTONIO MOSLEY, a/k/a Abdullah Hamid, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00336-MOC-1; 3:14-cv-00399-MOC) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7723 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTONIO MOSLEY, a/k/a Abdullah Hamid, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00336-MOC-1; 3:14-cv-00399-MOC) Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7723
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO MOSLEY, a/k/a Abdullah Hamid,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00336-MOC-1; 3:14-cv-00399-MOC)
Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Mosley, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Mosley seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying the respondent’s motions for an extension of time
and denying Mosley’s motion to recuse. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012),
and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The orders Mosley
seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable
interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we 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 this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2