United States v. Bradley Jeffrey-Moe

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 24-6661
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6661 Doc: 19 Filed: 09/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6661

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRADLEY OMAR JEFFREY-MOE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:19-cr-00165-AWA-RJK-1)

Submitted: September 25, 2025 Decided: September 29, 2025

Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bradley Omar Jeffrey-Moe, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Comer Mozzi, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6661 Doc: 19 Filed: 09/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Bradley Omar Jeffrey-Moe seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his

motion in which he contested the federal government’s jurisdiction over his criminal

prosecution and denying his motion for reconsideration. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; United States v. Lawrence, 201 F.3d 536, 537 (4th Cir.

2000) (“Piecemeal or interlocutory appeals are disfavored in the federal courts, especially

in criminal cases.” (citation omitted)). The orders Jeffrey-Moe seeks to appeal are neither

final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. 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