Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. George Van Wagner, 955 F.2d 43, 4th Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    George Van Wagner petitioned for permission to appeal the district court's denial of his motions for appointment of counsel and discovery in an interlocutory appeal. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition because the district court did not certify that the orders involved a controlling question of law or that an immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation, as required by 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). Additionally, the orders were not appealable final orders or collateral orders. The court denied the petition without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1992-02-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 955 F.2d 43 Docket: 92-8008

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    George Van Wagner petitioned for permission to appeal the district court's denial of his motions for appointment of counsel and discovery in an interlocutory appeal. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition because the district court did not certify that the orders involved a controlling question of law or that an immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation, as required by 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). Additionally, the orders were not appealable final orders or collateral orders. The court denied the petition without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. George Van Wagner, 955 F.2d 43, 4th Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    George Van Wagner petitioned for permission to appeal the district court's denial of his motions for appointment of counsel and discovery in an interlocutory appeal. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition because the district court did not certify that the orders involved a controlling question of law or that an immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation, as required by 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). Additionally, the orders were not appealable final orders or collateral orders. The court denied the petition without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    955 F.

    2d 43

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    UNITED STATES of America, Respondent,
    v.
    George VAN WAGNER, Petitioner.
    No. 92-8008.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Feb. 3, 1992.
    Decided Feb. 19, 1992.

    On Petition for Permission to Appeal.


    George Van Wagner, petitioner pro se.
    Corey Justin Smith, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Va.,
    for respondent.
    PETITION DENIED.
    Before WIDENER, HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:

    George Van Wagner seeks permission to take an interlocutory appeal under 28


    U.S.C. 1292(b) (1988) of the district court's orders denying his motions for
    appointment of counsel and discovery. This Court only has jurisdiction to
    consider appeals brought under 1292(b) if the district court certifies that the
    order appealed from "involves a controlling question of law" and that
    immediate appeal would "materially advance the ultimate termination of the
    litigation." The district court has not made such a certification in this case. In

    addition, the orders appealed from are neither appealable final orders, 28 U.S.C.
    1291(a) (1988), nor appealable collateral orders, Cohen v. Beneficial
    Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). See Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d
    962 (4th Cir.) (appointment of counsel), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 903 (1987);
    North Carolina Ass'n of Black Lawyers v. North Carolina Bd. of Law
    Examiners; 538 F.2d 547 (4th Cir.1976) (discovery).
    2

    We deny the petition for permission to take an interlocutory appeal. 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.

    PETITION DENIED.

    You might also like