Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Warren Newell, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Warren Rosslyn Newell. The district court had denied without prejudice Newell's motion to recover personal property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-01-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7461

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Warren Rosslyn Newell. The district court had denied without prejudice Newell's motion to recover personal property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Therefore, the appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Warren Newell, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Warren Rosslyn Newell. The district court had denied without prejudice Newell's motion to recover personal property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). The appeals court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Therefore, the appeals 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. 14-7461

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    WARREN ROSSLYN NEWELL,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
    District Judge. (1:14-cr-00022-MR-DLH-1)

    Submitted:

    January 15, 2015

    Decided:

    January 21, 2015

    Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Warren Rosslyn Newell, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik,


    Richard Lee Edwards, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
    Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Warren

    Rosslyn

    Newell

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order denying without prejudice his motion to recover personal


    property.

    See Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g).

    This court may exercise

    jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 1291 (2012),


    and

    certain

    interlocutory

    and

    collateral

    orders,

    28

    U.S.C.

    1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.


    Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).
    to

    appeal

    is

    neither

    final

    interlocutory or collateral order.


    appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    order

    The order Newell seeks


    nor

    an

    appealable

    Accordingly, we dismiss the

    We dispense with oral argument

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented


    in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
    the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like