US v. Webster Williams, III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion dispositions in opinion--denying Motion to strike the Government s response [1000112427-2]; denying Motion to correct error [1000127728-2]. Originating case numbers: 4:12-cr-00969-RBH-1, 4:17-cv-00350-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000141306]. Mailed to: Appellant. [17-6794]

Appeal: 17-6794

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/22/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6794

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WEBSTER DOUGLAS WILLIAMS, III,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:12-cr-00969-RBH-1; 4:17-cv-00350RBH)

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 22, 2017

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Webster Douglas Williams, III, Appellant Pro Se. William E. Day, II, Assistant United
States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina; Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6794

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/22/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Webster Douglas Williams, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying
his motions for default judgment and to strike the Government’s response to Williams’
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only 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, 545-46 (1949). The orders Williams seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor
appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we deny Williams’ motions to
strike the Government’s response and to correct error and we dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction. 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