Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Muhammad, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Pete Noble Muhammad's appeal of a district court order denying various motions Muhammad had filed regarding his term of supervised release. The appellate court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court order was not a final judgment, nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. The issues raised in Muhammad's motions would be addressed during his pending supervised release revocation proceedings. As such, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-12-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6052

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Pete Noble Muhammad's appeal of a district court order denying various motions Muhammad had filed regarding his term of supervised release. The appellate court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court order was not a final judgment, nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. The issues raised in Muhammad's motions would be addressed during his pending supervised release revocation proceedings. As such, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views2 pages

    United States v. Muhammad, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Pete Noble Muhammad's appeal of a district court order denying various motions Muhammad had filed regarding his term of supervised release. The appellate court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court order was not a final judgment, nor was it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. The issues raised in Muhammad's motions would be addressed during his pending supervised release revocation proceedings. As such, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-6052

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    PETE NOBLE MUHAMMAD, a/k/a Pete Smith, a/k/a Jose,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
    William L. Osteen,
    Jr., District Judge. (2:93-cr-00117-WO-1)

    Submitted:

    November 30, 2010

    Decided:

    December 6, 2010

    Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Pete Noble Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se.


    Anna Mills Wagoner,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Pete
    courts

    order

    Noble

    Muhammad

    denying

    seeks

    various

    to

    appeal

    motions

    Muhammad

    regarding his term of supervised release.


    relief,

    the

    district

    court

    noted

    that

    the

    district

    had

    filed

    In denying Muhammad

    the

    issues

    raised

    in

    Muhammads motions would be addressed during the course of his


    then-pending
    court

    may

    supervised

    exercise

    release

    jurisdiction

    revocation
    only

    proceedings.

    over

    final

    orders.

    This
    28

    U.S.C. 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral


    orders.

    28 U.S.C. 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen

    v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).


    The order Muhammad seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor
    an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

    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

    You might also like