United States v. Under Seal

204 F. App'x 269
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Under Seal. Read the opinion of the Court — 584 F.3d 175
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 24, 2006·No. No. 06-4173·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying a motion to dismiss a search warrant, and seeking return of evidence seized during the search. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order the Appellant seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See DiBella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121, 131-32, 82 S.Ct. 654, 7 L.Ed.2d 614 (1962); United States v. Reg’l Consulting Servs. for Econ. and Cmty. Dev., Inc., 766 F.2d 870, 874-75 (4th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Under Seal, 204 F. App'x 269 (4th Cir. 2006).

204 F. App'x 269 (United States v. Under Seal) — 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)
DiBella v. United States
369 U.S. 121 (Supreme Court, 1962)
In Re United States
766 F.2d 870 (Fourth Circuit, 1985)