United States v. Brandon Jennings ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7360 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7360
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON MARQUIS JENNINGS, a/k/a Smilez, a/k/a Smilez Finesse, a/k/a
Beezy, Mustafa Bey,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00318-FL-1; 5:22-cv-00305-FL)
Submitted: March 21, 2023 Decided: March 24, 2023
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brandon Marquis Jennings, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7360 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Marquis Jennings seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his
motion to appoint counsel and denying his motion for bail in connection with his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order on
appeal is not a final order, and the portion of the order denying the motion to appoint
counsel is not an appealable interlocutory decision. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion
of the appeal.
The district court’s denial of bail falls within the collateral order doctrine and is
immediately appealable. See Pagan v. United States, 353 F.3d 1343, 1345-46 (11th Cir.
2003) (collecting cases adopting rule). We have reviewed the record on appeal and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district’s order. United
States v. Jennings, No. 5:18-cr-00318-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 2022). 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 IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART
2