Carreras v. Federal Bureau of Prisons , 5 F. App'x 247 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-6389
    HUMBERT CARRERAS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    and
    JOSE   ENRIQUE  CHALUISAN-PAGAN;   RAFAEL  J.
    DOMINGUEZ; CANDELARIO QUINTANA-MARTINEZ; JOSE
    ALBERTO ACEVEDO-GUZMAN,
    Petitioners,
    versus
    FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; JOHN DOE, John/Jane
    Doe, Warden of Each Federal Prison Facility,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis-
    trict Judge. (CA-99-637-5-BR)
    Submitted:   February 16, 2001              Decided:   March 8, 2001
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Humbert Carreras, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Humbert Carreras appeals the district court’s order construing
    a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition filed by Carreras and four other
    petitioners as a joint 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion
    and transferring the petition to the United States District Court
    for the District of Puerto Rico.
    This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,
    28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral
    orders.     28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); see also
    Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 
    337 U.S. 541
     (1949).         The
    transfer of a post-conviction petition to another district court is
    not a final order, nor is it appealable as a collateral order.
    Middlebrooks v. Smith, 
    735 F.2d 431
     (11th Cir. 1984).
    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. Further,
    only Carreras signed the notice of appeal, so he is the only Appel-
    lant.    Covington v. Allsbrook, 
    636 F.2d 63
    , 64 (4th Cir. 1980).    We
    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-6389

Citation Numbers: 5 F. App'x 247

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Hamilton

Filed Date: 3/8/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024