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)
11-7172•United States of America v. Abriel Dontea Dove
11-7172Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 14, 2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7172
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ABRIEL DONTEA DOVE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (4:08-cr-00040-BO-1; 4:11-cv-00034-BO)
Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 14, 2012
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Abriel Dontea Dove, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Abriel Dontea Dove seeks to appeal the district
court’s order sealing certain documents. Although Dove’s
informal brief to this court also assigns error to the district
court’s ultimate denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2011) motion, his premature notice of appeal, filed
before the district court ordered the dismissal of his motion,
fails to perfect an appeal of that order. In re Bryson, 406
F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005).
Furthermore, 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). The district court’s order sealing
certain documents is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.