United States v. Harold Alley, Jr.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 24, 2024
• Docket: 24-6648
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6648 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6356

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HAROLD K. ALLEY, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 24-6648

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:17-mj-01102-BO-1)

Submitted: October 10, 2024 Decided: October 24, 2024 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6648 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Meredith Woods Hubbard, HUBBARD LAW FIRM PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lori B. Warlick, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6648 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/24/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Harold K. Alley, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying without prejudice or as moot his pro se motions to represent himself

and concerning appointed counsel. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction. Alley and his counsel have each responded to the motion.

We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). “This final judgment rule requires ‘that a party must

ordinarily raise all claims of error in a single appeal following final judgment on the

merits.’” Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263 (1984). “In the criminal context,

this means that this Court generally does not have appellate jurisdiction until after the

imposition of a sentence.” United States v. Sueiro, 946 F.3d 637, 639 (4th Cir. 2020).

The orders that Alley seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable

interlocutory or collateral orders. See id. at 642. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s

motion to dismiss, and we dismiss these appeals 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