US v. Daniels

Filing 920070330


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4085 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JERMAL DANIELS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00103) Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: March 30, 2007 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin A. Tate, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Karen S. Marston, Kevin Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jermal Daniels seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for release from solitary confinement. Daniels has been found guilty in his criminal proceedings but is awaiting sentencing. We 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); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). the final decision before In criminal proceedings sentencing is which litigation has not ended. Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212 (1937). context, exceptions to the final judgment In the criminal rule are rare. The Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 265, 270 (1984). order Daniels seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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. Accordingly, we DISMISSED Moreover, Daniels relief, if any, would be in the form of a civil action. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (finding segregation did not violate prisoner's civil rights). Extended stays on administrative segregation, however, do not ordinarily implicate a protected liberty interest. Beverati v. Smith, 120 F.3d 500, 502 (4th Cir. 1997) (regarding six month stay). - 2 - *

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?