United States of America v. ISAAC BENTON ARMSTEAD, IV, a/k/a Ike, a/k/a Issac Benton Armstead

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7658
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ISAAC BENTON ARMSTEAD, IV, a/k/a Ike, a/k/a Issac Benton
Armstead,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior
District Judge. (5:08-cr-00258-MBS-1)
Submitted: December 29, 2015 Decided: February 9, 2016
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Isaac Benton Armstead, IV, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D.
Ragsdale, John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Isaac Benton Armstead, IV, seeks to appeal a September 28,
2015 order of the district court, but that was a text order
granting Armstead’s own motion for an extension of time. In his
informal brief, Armstead also challenges the “district court[’s]
denial” of his motion for a sentence reduction, the Government’s
failure to address the merits of his second § 2255 motion, and
the sentencing court’s application of the career offender
sentencing enhancement. However, the district court has not
entered an order deciding any of these issues.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-
46 (1949). Armstead seeks to appeal neither a final order nor
an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Armstead’s
motions to reduce his sentence and for reconsideration remain
pending in district court, as does the Government’s motion for
summary judgment on Armstead’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion to
vacate. Accordingly, we deny 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
adequately presented in the materials before this court, and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --