United States v. Byrd

332 F. App'x 70
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Byrd. Read the opinion of the Court — 238 F. App'x 948
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 15, 2009·No. No. 09-6836·Published

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roger Byrd filed a notice of appeal from a pleading filed by his counsel informing the district court that he was not eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 706 of the Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). [71]*71This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); 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). Because counsel’s pleading is not an appealable order, we dismiss the appeal. 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

United States v. Byrd, 332 F. App'x 70 (4th Cir. 2009).

332 F. App'x 70 (United States v. Byrd) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
337 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1949)