United States v. Siguenza ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7173
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DIANE BEVERLY SIGUENZA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00400-FDW-6)
Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 20, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Diane Beverly Siguenza, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Diane Beverly Siguenza seeks to appeal the district
court’s denial of her motion to recuse. This court may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006),
and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Siguenza seeks to
appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory
or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and 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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
*
In her reply brief, Siguenza seeks to transform her appeal
into a mandamus petition in which she seeks an order from this
court directing the district court judge to recuse himself.
Because “an issue first argued in a reply brief is not properly
before a court of appeals,” we decline to address this claim.
Cavallo v. Star Enter., 100 F.3d 1150, 1152 n.2 (4th Cir. 1996);
see 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the
issues raised in the informal brief.”).
2