US v. William Scott Davis, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999762606-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999762601-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999714211-2]; denying Motion for other relief [999729208-2] Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00240-BR-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999764023]. Mailed to: Davis. [15-4702]

Appeal: 15-4702

Doc: 23

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4702

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:14-cr-00240-BR-1)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

February 29, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Barbara Dickerson
Kocher,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Raleigh,
North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4702

Doc: 23

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
William

Scott

Davis,

Jr.,

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order denying 33 motions in his pending criminal matter.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,
28 U.S.C.

§ 1291

(2012),

collateral

orders,

28

and

U.S.C.

certain

§ 1292

interlocutory

(2012);

Fed.

R.

Civ.

and
P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 54546 (1949).
order

The order Davis seeks to appeal is neither a final

nor

an

appealable

interlocutory

or

collateral

order.

Accordingly, we deny Davis’ motions to appoint counsel and for
emergency

eye

jurisdiction.

surgery

and

dismiss

the

appeal

for

lack

of

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

2