United States of America v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206 4th Cir. 2003 . The district court then directed Petty…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6714
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT W. PETTY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR-
97-107-DKC)
Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 5, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert W. Petty, Appellant Pro Se. Hollis Raphael Weisman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Robert W. Petty seeks to appeal from the district court’s
order denying a number of his pending motions. The district court
also noted that Petty’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion contains both
true Rule 60(b) claims and claims for which authorization from this
court would be necessary prior to consideration of the claims by
the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000); United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206 (4th Cir. 2003). The district court
then directed Petty to file a response electing how to proceed
within thirty days of the order or face dismissal of his Rule 60(b)
motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The
order Petty seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability, deny Petty’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, 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 of 2 --