United States v. Barton Adams ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-4482
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS,
    Defendant – Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
    Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00077-JPB-JES-1)
    Submitted:   July 19, 2011                 Decided:   August 2, 2011
    Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Scott Charlton Brown, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant.
    Alan McGonigal, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Barton         Joseph    Adams     seeks      to     appeal    the    district
    court’s April 15, 2011 order denying his motions to vacate the
    district court’s November 21, 2008 protective and repatriation
    order, as modified on December 9, 2008, and the court’s March
    20, 2009 order holding him in civil contempt.                          The jurisdiction
    of this court to review orders originating in the district court
    is    limited        to    final        decisions      and      certain,        specified,
    interlocutory and collateral orders.                          See 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1291
    ,
    1292 (2006); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 
    337 U.S. 541
    , 545-47 (1949).              The district court’s order is neither a
    final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
    Additionally, because the district court’s April 15 order is not
    a    release    or    detention         order,    it     is    not   appealable      under
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3145
    (c) (2006).
    Accordingly,            we    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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-4482

Judges: Motz, Duncan, Diaz

Filed Date: 8/2/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024