United States v. Lentz

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6159

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JAY E. LENTZ,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00150-TSE-1)

Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: September 2, 2009

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jay E. Lentz, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia Marie Haynes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Erik R. Barnett, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (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