Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Clarkson, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Robert Clarkson's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Clarkson sought to appeal orders from the district court denying his motion under Rule 41(g) to return evidence seized in a search and denying reconsideration. The Court of Appeals determined that the orders were not final orders or appealable interlocutory orders, so it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal. The Court therefore dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-02-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6477

    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 Robert Clarkson's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Clarkson sought to appeal orders from the district court denying his motion under Rule 41(g) to return evidence seized in a search and denying reconsideration. The Court of Appeals determined that the orders were not final orders or appealable interlocutory orders, so it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal. The Court therefore dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Clarkson, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Robert Clarkson's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Clarkson sought to appeal orders from the district court denying his motion under Rule 41(g) to return evidence seized in a search and denying reconsideration. The Court of Appeals determined that the orders were not final orders or appealable interlocutory orders, so it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal. The Court therefore dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 08-6477

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ROBERT B. CLARKSON, 515 Concord Avenue,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
    Lacy H. Thornburg,
    District Judge. (1:08-mc-0005-LHT)

    Submitted:

    January 29, 2009

    Decided:

    February 23, 2009

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Robert B. Clarkson, Appellant Pro Se.


    Jill Westmoreland Rose,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    The Appellant, Robert B. Clarkson, seeks to appeal the
    district courts orders denying his motion under Fed. R. Crim.
    P. 41(g) seeking return of evidence seized during a search and
    denying his motion for reconsideration.

    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 orders Clarkson seeks to

    appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or


    collateral orders.

    See United States v. Regl Consulting Servs.

    for Econ. and Cmty. Dev., Inc., 766 F.2d 870, 874-75 (4th Cir.
    1985).

    Accordingly,

    jurisdiction.

    we

    dismiss

    the

    appeal

    for

    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