Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Mendez, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Raphael Mendez appealed a district court order denying his motion to expedite his hearing date and require an in-person hearing instead of a video conference. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order was not a final decision and did not fall into the categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. As the order being appealed was not final, and no exception applied, the appeals court had no power to hear the case and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-03-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-6072

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Raphael Mendez appealed a district court order denying his motion to expedite his hearing date and require an in-person hearing instead of a video conference. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order was not a final decision and did not fall into the categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. As the order being appealed was not final, and no exception applied, the appeals court had no power to hear the case and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Mendez, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Raphael Mendez appealed a district court order denying his motion to expedite his hearing date and require an in-person hearing instead of a video conference. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order was not a final decision and did not fall into the categories of appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. As the order being appealed was not final, and no exception applied, the appeals court had no power to hear the case and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-6072

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    RAPHAEL MENDEZ,
    Respondent - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    W. Earl Britt, Senior
    District Judge. (5:91-HC-350-BR)

    Submitted: March 23, 2006

    Decided: March 31, 2006

    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Raphael Mendez, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant


    United States Attorney, Michelle T. Fuseyamore, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Raphael Mendez seeks to appeal a district court order
    entered December 21, 2005, denying his motion to expedite his
    hearing date and for permission to appear live rather than by video
    conferencing.

    We dismiss the appeal because no final appealable

    order has been entered.


    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).

    Because the order being appealed is neither a final order nor a


    certain interlocutory or collateral order, we dismiss the appeal
    for lack of jurisdiction.

    We also deny the motion for general

    relief. 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