US v. John Peterson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:07-cr-00045-BR-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999767984]. Mailed to: John Peterson. [15-7180]

Appeal: 15-7180

Doc: 7

Filed: 03/04/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7180

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN ANTHONY PETERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville.
W. Earl Britt,
Senior District Judge. (4:07-cr-00045-BR-1)

Submitted:

December 17, 2015

Decided:

March 4, 2016

Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Anthony Peterson, Appellant Pro Se.
Kristine L. Fritz,
Eric David Goulian, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7180

Doc: 7

Filed: 03/04/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John Anthony Peterson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order characterizing his “Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Void
Judgment for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction” as a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion and denying the motion without prejudice to
Peterson

filing

on

the

proper

form.

On

appeal,

Peterson

contends that the court erred by characterizing his pleading as
a § 2255 motion and requests that this court or the district
court consider his motion as he presented it.
The

district

court

did

not

provide

the

notice

required

under Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003), before
recharacterizing
motion.

But

Peterson’s

we

may

pleading

exercise

as

an

jurisdiction

initial
only

§ 2255

over

final

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, 54546 (1949).

The order Peterson seeks to appeal is neither a

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623
(2015).

Accordingly,

jurisdiction.

we

dismiss

the

appeal

for

lack

of

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2

Appeal: 15-7180

before

Doc: 7

this

Filed: 03/04/2016

court

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3