Pramco II, LLC v. Kissi

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1394

PRAMCO II, LLC; EMIL HIRSCH; O’CONNOR & HANNAN, LLP,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

and

AMMENDALE LIVING TRUST,

Garnishee,

versus

DAVID M. KISSI, Individually and in his capacity as Co-Trustee of the Ammendale Living Trust,

Defendant - Appellant,

EDITH TRUVILLION KISSI, Individually and in her capacity as Co-Trustee of the Ammendale Living Trust; AMMENDALE LIVING TRUST,

Defendants,

CHRISTOPHER B. MEAD; RICHARD M. KREMEN; JOSE ANDRADE,

Parties in Interest. No. 05-1917

PRAMCO II, LLC,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

EMIL HIRSCH; O’CONNOR & HANNAN, LLP,

Plaintiffs,

DAVID M. KISSI, Individually and in his capacity as Co-Trustee of the Ammendale Living Trust,

EDITH TRUVILLION KISSI, Individually and in her capacity as Co-Trustee of the Ammendale Living Trust; AMMENDALE LIVING TRUST;

CHRISTOPHER MEAD; RICHARD M. KREMEN; JOSE ANDRADE,

Parties in Interest.

- 2 - No. 05-4371

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

DAVID KISSI,

EDITH TRUVILLION KISSI,

Defendant,

Party in Interest.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA- 03-2241-8-PJM; CR-03-473-PJM)

Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: May 25, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

- 3 - Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David M. Kissi, Appellant Pro Se. Emil Hirsch, James Patrick Ryan, O’CONNOR & HANNAN, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Christopher Bowmar Mead, LONDON & MEAD, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 4 - PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, David M. Kissi seeks to

appeal from the district court’s orders denying his motions for

reconsideration of the denial of his motion for leave to file suit

against Emil Hirsch, and denying his motion to disqualify the

district court judge. 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); see also Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 358

(1957) (criminal appeal generally premature until sentence has been

entered). The orders Kissi seeks to appeal are neither final

orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals 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

- 5 -