US v. Michael Rufus
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL ALONZA RUFUS, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00550-MJP-1)
November 17, 2009
November 25, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Alonza Rufus, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Michael court's text Alonza Rufus his seeks to appeal for the to district appoint
counsel, for discovery, and for a hearing. and dismiss in part.
We affirm in part
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral 54(b); (1949). Rufus' orders, v. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 Indus. (2006); Loan Fed. R. Civ. U.S. P. 541
The portion of the district court's order that denied motions to appoint counsel, for discovery, and for a
hearing is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in part
for lack of jurisdiction. With regard to the part of the district court's order denying Rufus' motion for bond, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. United States v. Rufus, No. 3:02-crAccordingly, we affirm in
00550-MJP-1 (D.S.C. Aug. 20, 2009). part. We
We deny Rufus' motion to place the appeal in abeyance. 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
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?