US v. Michael Rankin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000166898-2]; denying Motion for other relief [1000162026-2] Originating case number: 2:14-cr-00003-FL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000177464]. Mailed to: Rankins. [17-6834]

Appeal: 17-6834

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/20/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6834

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL RANKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Elizabeth City. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (2:14-cr-00003-FL-1)

Submitted: October 17, 2017

Decided: October 20, 2017

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Rankins, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Fritz, Jacob D. Pugh, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6834

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/20/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Michael Rankins seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his pro se
motion to be released on personal recognizance. 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 order Rankins seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Rankins’ motions for a change of venue and for
appointment of new counsel, and 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