US v. Charazz Moran
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARAZZ KEVIN MORAN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:06-cr-00051-jct)
August 20, 2009
August 27, 2009
Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charazz Kevin Moran, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Charazz Kevin Moran seeks to appeal the district
court's grant of partial summary judgment on Moran's 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. Though his appeal was filed
pro se, Moran's district court counsel has filed a motion before us on Moran's behalf, acknowledging that this appeal is
interlocutory, but requesting this court stay consideration of the appeal pending the district court's final disposition of the remainder of Moran's § 2255 claims. Alternatively, counsel
requests this court dismiss Moran's appeal without prejudice to his ability to refile at the close of the district court's
proceedings. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral 54(b); (1949). order nor orders, v. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 Indus. (2006); Loan Fed. R. Civ. U.S. P. 541
The order Moran seeks to appeal is neither a final an we lack to appealable deny of interlocutory motion to Our or collateral and order. the
Accordingly, appeal for
jurisdiction. right to
dismissal his appeal
district court has entered a final order.
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
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?