US v. Charlie Thompson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number:1:14-cr-00286-TDS-1, 1:15-cr-00180-TDS-1, 1:16-cv-00879-TDS-JLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000257444]. Mailed to: Charlie Thompson. [17-7384]
<![CDATA[
Appeal: 17-7384
Doc: 9
Filed: 03/14/2018
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7384
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLIE THOMPSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00286-TDS-1; 1:15-cr00180-TDS-1; 1:16-cv-00879-TDS-JLW)
Submitted: March 8, 2018
Decided: March 14, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charlie Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Kyle David Pousson, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 17-7384
Doc: 9
Filed: 03/14/2018
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Charlie Thompson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 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).
Because the district court failed to address Thompson’s claim based on Dean v. United
States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017), the order Thompson seeks to appeal is neither a final order
nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 69697 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand
the case to the district court for consideration of Thompson’s Dean claim. We express no
opinion on the merits of any of Thompson’s claims. 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 AND REMANDED
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
