Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Sean Robinson's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court can only hear appeals from final orders or certain interlocutory orders. Because the district court had only granted Robinson's motion to hold his motion to reduce his sentence in abeyance pending a Supreme Court decision, but had not yet issued a dispositive order on the sentence reduction motion, the Fourth Circuit's order was not final or appealable. The Fourth Circuit therefore dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-10-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6931

    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 Sean Robinson's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court can only hear appeals from final orders or certain interlocutory orders. Because the district court had only granted Robinson's motion to hold his motion to reduce his sentence in abeyance pending a Supreme Court decision, but had not yet issued a dispositive order on the sentence reduction motion, the Fourth Circuit's order was not final or appealable. The Fourth Circuit therefore dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Sean Robinson's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court can only hear appeals from final orders or certain interlocutory orders. Because the district court had only granted Robinson's motion to hold his motion to reduce his sentence in abeyance pending a Supreme Court decision, but had not yet issued a dispositive order on the sentence reduction motion, the Fourth Circuit's order was not final or appealable. The Fourth Circuit therefore 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 10-6931

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    SEAN ANTHONY ROBINSON, a/k/a Black,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Henry E. Hudson, District
    Judge. (3:06-cr-00204-HEH-1)

    Submitted:

    October 19, 2010

    Decided:

    October 28, 2010

    Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Sean Anthony Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant,


    II, Roderick Charles Young, Assistant United States Attorneys,
    Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Sean
    courts

    Anthony

    order

    Robinson

    granting

    his

    seeks

    motion

    to

    appeal

    to

    hold

    the

    his

    district

    18

    U.S.C.

    3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence in abeyance


    pending

    Supreme

    Court

    decision.

    This

    court

    may

    exercise

    jurisdiction only over final orders, 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).

    Because the district

    court

    order

    has

    not

    3582(c)(2)

    yet

    issued

    motion,

    jurisdiction.

    we

    dispositive

    dismiss

    the

    appeal

    on
    for

    Robinsons
    lack

    of

    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