United States v. Rivers

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 1, 2005
Docket05-6352
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Rivers (United States v. Rivers) 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. Rivers, (4th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6352

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RICKY L. RIVERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-99-45)

Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: September 1, 2005

Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky L. Rivers, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Ricky L. Rivers seeks to appeal a district court order

allegedly entered on October 4, 2004. Though Rivers includes an

October 4, 2004, letter to a third party from the district court

concerning serving his state sentence before serving his federal

sentence, no final appealable order was entered on that date.

This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). After

thoroughly reviewing the record and Rivers’ submissions, we

conclude that Rivers fails to appeal an appealable order.

Accordingly, we deny Rivers’ motion for the appointment of counsel

and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

- 2 -

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. Rivers, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rivers-ca4-2005.