United States v. Eubanks

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 25, 2009
Docket08-8474
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Eubanks (United States v. Eubanks) 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. Eubanks, (4th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8474

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER EUBANKS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. James E. Seibert, Magistrate Judge. (5:06-cr-00033-FPS-JES-2; 5:07-cv-00153-FPS)

Submitted: March 11, 2009 Decided: March 25, 2009

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Eubanks, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Christopher Eubanks seeks to appeal the magistrate

judge’s order denying his motion for default judgment on his

pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion to vacate, set aside or

correct his sentence. This court may exercise jurisdiction only

over final orders and certain interlocutory and collateral

orders. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1291, 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541

(1949). The order Eubanks seeks to appeal is neither a final

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Eubanks’ motion for a certificate of appealability is denied 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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Eubanks, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-eubanks-ca4-2009.