Veotis Harding v. John Owen

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-hc-02212-BO. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999653484]. Mailed to: Veotis Harding. [15-6486]

Appeal: 15-6486

Doc: 11

Filed: 09/03/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6486

VEOTIS HARDING,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOHN W. OWENS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:13-hc-02212-BO)

Submitted:

August 27, 2015

Decided:

September 3, 2015

Before WILKINSON and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Veotis Harding, Appellant Pro Se.
Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6486

Doc: 11

Filed: 09/03/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Veotis Harding seeks to appeal the district court’s order
construing

his

“motion

of

actual

innocence”

as

one

under

28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), and docketing it within his criminal case.
The motion is proceeding in Harding’s criminal docket. *
court

may

exercise

jurisdiction

only

over

final

This

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).

The

order Harding seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

Accordingly, we
We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

*

Although the clerk’s order accompanying the district
court’s order states that “respondent’s motion to dismiss is
granted and this action is hereby dismissed,” the motion is
proceeding under Harding’s criminal docket.
Thus, the clerk’s
order is erroneous.

2