United States v. Williams

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 17, 2005
Docket04-7270
StatusUnpublished

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

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7270

DENNIS LEE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CR-02-806; CA-04-1665-4-25)

Submitted: January 21, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005

Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Dennis Lee Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying his emergency motion for a protective order and

granting the Government additional time to respond to his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion. 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 orders Williams seeks to appeal are neither final

orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.

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

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