Filed: Apr. 07, 2020
Latest Update: Apr. 07, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7652 SEAN S. EARL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:19-cv-00547-REP-RCY) Submitted: March 31, 2020 Decided: April 7, 2020 Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean S. Earl, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7652 SEAN S. EARL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:19-cv-00547-REP-RCY) Submitted: March 31, 2020 Decided: April 7, 2020 Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean S. Earl, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7652
SEAN S. EARL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, Magistrate Judge. (3:19-cv-00547-REP-RCY)
Submitted: March 31, 2020 Decided: April 7, 2020
Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sean S. Earl, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sean S. Earl filed a notice of appeal in his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018)
proceedings. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Here,
the district court has not entered a final order, and Earl fails to identify an interlocutory or
collateral order from which he seeks to appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) (“The notice
of appeal must . . . designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed).
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