Johnson v. United States

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 18, 2004
Docket04-6594
StatusUnpublished

This text of Johnson v. United States (Johnson 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
Johnson v. United States, (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6594

ALLEN RAY JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-01-167)

Submitted: June 9, 2004 Decided: June 18, 2004

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allen Ray Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Allen Ray Johnson appeals from the district court’s order

denying his motion for release on bond. We may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000),

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The district court’s denial of

bond falls within the collateral order doctrine and is immediately

appealable. See Pagan v. United States, 353 F.3d 1343, 1345-46

(11th Cir. 2003) (collecting cases adopting rule). We have

reviewed the record on appeal and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See United States v. Johnson, No. CR-01-167 (E.D.N.C.

Mar. 8, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED

- 2 -

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

Related

Pagan v. United States
353 F.3d 1343 (Eleventh Circuit, 2003)
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Johnson v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-united-states-ca4-2004.