The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
05-7796•United States of America v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 1949 . The
05-7796Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 22, 2006
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7796
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
IVEY WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-97-22; CA-02-66-3)
Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 22, 2006
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ivey Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United
States Attorney, David Alan Brown, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Ivey Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing two of the claims raised in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
motion and ordering the Government to respond to his remaining
claims. 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 Walker seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Given this
disposition, we deny his pending motion for a certificate of
appealability. 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.