United States v. Michael Gorbey

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 17, 2023
• Docket: 22-6393
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6393 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/17/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6393

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL GORBEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (5:21-cr-00214-1)

Submitted: July 10, 2023 Decided: July 17, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Gorbey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6393 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/17/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Gorbey seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the Government

leave of court to dismiss the indictment without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.

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

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292. “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 a

criminal case the rule prohibits appellate review until conviction and imposition of

sentence.” Id.; see also United States v. Sueiro, 946 F.3d 637, 639 (4th Cir. 2020).

The order that Gorbey seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order. See Parr v. United States, 351 U.S. 513, 518-21 (1956);

United States v. Under Seal, 853 F.3d 706, 717 (4th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, we dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and we deny the pending motions as moot. 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