Henk Rommy v. United States

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 22, 2016
Docket15-7955
StatusUnpublished

This text of Henk Rommy v. United States (Henk Rommy v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Henk Rommy v. United States, (4th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7955

HENK ORLANDO ROMMY, In the matter of the Extradition of,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00163-IMK-MJA)

Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Joseph Kornbrath, Federal Defender, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Henk Orlando Rommy seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his appeal of the magistrate judge’s order

certifying his extradition pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184 (2012).

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). The order Rommy seeks to appeal is neither a final

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See

Zhenli Ye Gon v. Holt, 774 F.3d 207, 210-11 (4th Cir. 2014),

cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2859 (2015). 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 this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1949)
Zhenli Gon v. Gerald Holt
774 F.3d 207 (Fourth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Henk Rommy v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henk-rommy-v-united-states-ca4-2016.