Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Amu, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal by Jose Nacacio Amu of a district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to amend his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appellate court found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order or otherwise appealable. The court therefore denied Amu's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-09-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7010

    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 an appeal by Jose Nacacio Amu of a district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to amend his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appellate court found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order or otherwise appealable. The court therefore denied Amu's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Amu, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal by Jose Nacacio Amu of a district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to amend his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appellate court found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order was not a final order or otherwise appealable. The court therefore denied Amu's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the appeal 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 04-7010

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JOSE NACACIO AMU,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    James C. Cacheris,
    Senior District Judge. (CR-97-40; CA-03-601)

    Submitted:

    September 9, 2004

    Decided:

    September 16, 2004

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jose Nacacio Amu, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling,


    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:
    Jose Nacacio Amu seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his
    motion to amend his pending 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 order Amu seeks to

    appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or


    collateral order.

    Accordingly, we deny Amus motion to proceed in

    forma pauperis, and 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 -

    You might also like