United States v. Walker

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 22, 2006
Docket05-7796
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Walker (United States v. Walker) 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. Walker, (4th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7796

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

IVEY WALKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-97-22; CA-02-66-3)

Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 22, 2006

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivey Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, David Alan Brown, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Ivey Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing two of the claims raised in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

motion and ordering the Government to respond to his remaining

claims. 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). The

order Walker seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Given this

disposition, we deny his pending motion for a certificate of

appealability. 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. Walker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-walker-ca4-2006.