United States v. Lentz

332 F. App'x 19
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Lentz. Read the opinion of the Court — 524 F.3d 501
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 2, 2009·No. No. 09-6159·Published

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jay Lentz seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel and his motion for appointment of an investigator. This 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). The order Lentz seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny as moot Lentz’s motion to hold the case in abeyance. 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. Lentz, 332 F. App'x 19 (4th Cir. 2009).

332 F. App'x 19 (United States v. Lentz) — 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)