Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Betancourt, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Wendell Betancourt's appeal of a district court order denying his motion for recusal. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the order was not a final decision and did not fall under any of the limited categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. As the order was neither final nor appealable, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-05-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6035

    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 Wendell Betancourt's appeal of a district court order denying his motion for recusal. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the order was not a final decision and did not fall under any of the limited categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. As the order was neither final nor appealable, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Betancourt, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Wendell Betancourt's appeal of a district court order denying his motion for recusal. The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the order was not a final decision and did not fall under any of the limited categories of interlocutory or collateral orders that can be appealed. As the order was neither final nor appealable, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 05-6035

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    WENDELL EDWARD BETANCOURT, a/k/a Shawn Nelson,
    a/k/a Fire,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
    District Judge. (CR-01-25; CA-04-77-3)

    Submitted:

    April 28, 2005

    Decided:

    May 6, 2005

    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Wendell Edward Betancourt, Appellant Pro Se.


    Thomas Oliver
    Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Wendell

    E.

    Betancourt

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    courts order denying his motion for recusal.

    the

    district

    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 Betancourt seeks to

    appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or


    collateral order.

    Accordingly, 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