Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
12-6609•Kelvin Allen McNeil v. Keith Whitener
12-6609Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit06.09.2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6609
KELVIN ALLEN MCNEIL,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
KEITH WHITENER,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-hc-02058-F)
Submitted: July 24, 2012 Decided: September 6, 2012
Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kelvin Allen McNeil, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin Allen McNeil seeks to appeal from his pending
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.* 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). Neither a final order
nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order has been
entered in McNeil’s case. 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
* To the extent McNeil seeks to appeal his North Carolina
state court conviction to this court, we lack jurisdiction to
review state court orders. See District of Columbia Court of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
-- 3 of 3 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.