Case ID: f-appx_465/html/0256-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Abriel Dontea DOVE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-7172.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.
    Decided: Feb. 14, 2012.
    Abriel Dontea Dove, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Abriel Dontea Dove seeks to appeal the district court’s order sealing certain documents. Although Dove’s informal brief to this court also assigns error to the district court’s ultimate denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion, his premature notice of appeal, filed before the district court ordered the dismissal of his motion, fails to perfect an appeal of that order. In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir.2005).

Furthermore, 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., 837 U.S. 541, 545 — 46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The district court’s order sealing certain documents is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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.