United States v. Edwards , 83 F. App'x 522 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6996
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL ANTHONY EDWARDS, a/k/a Teddy Reid,
a/k/a Lanzel Reid,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-98-294-MU)
Submitted: November 12, 2003 Decided: December 17, 2003
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Anthony Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. C. Nicks Williams,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Anthony Edwards filed an “application for certificate
of appealability of defendant’s sentencing guidelines level and
enhancement” in the district court, which the district court
docketed as a notice of appeal. The district court, however, has
not issued any final orders in Edwards’s case since entry of the
judgment of conviction and sentence on December 18, 2000, which we
affirmed. See United States v. Edwards, No. 01-4030, 2002 WL 431859(4th Cir. Mar. 20, 2002) (unpublished). In this court, Edwards has
filed a “motion for correction of sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255.” We dismiss the motion because we lack jurisdiction to
consider it.
A motion for correction of sentence pursuant to § 2255 must be
filed in “the court which imposed the sentence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(2000). The statute further provides that “[a]n appeal may be taken
to the court of appeals from the order entered on the motion as
from a final judgment on application for a writ of habeas corpus.”
Id. Edwards’s motion is not properly brought in this court.
Accordingly, we dismiss Edwards’s motion for lack of
jurisdiction. 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