United States v. Arawole

16 F. App'x 193
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 6, 2001
Docket01-6997
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 F. App'x 193 (United States v. Arawole) 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
United States v. Arawole, 16 F. App'x 193 (4th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Alani Olusegun Arawole appeals the district court order denying his motion for leave to amend his 28 U.S.C.A § 2255 (West Supp.2000) motion and the amended § 2255 motion. Arawole has also filed a motion to stay district court proceedings pending the outcome of this appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the court’s order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). An order denying a motion for leave to amend the § 2255 motion and the amended § 2255 motion is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We deny a certificate of appealability, dismiss the appeal as interlocutory, and deny the motion to stay as moot. 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.

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

Related

Franklin v. Chapman
E.D. Michigan, 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 F. App'x 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-arawole-ca4-2001.