Case ID: f-appx_2/html/0313-01.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. Harold Gene BARROW, III, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4666.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2001.
    Decided Jan. 23, 2001.
    
      Andrew B. Banzhoff, Asheville, NC, for appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, NC, for appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, MICPIAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Harold Gene Barrow, III, appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. Although Barrow has entered a conditional guilty plea and his plea has been accepted by the district court, he has not yet been sentenced. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291 (West 1993), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292 (West 1993 & Supp.2000 ); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order denying Barrow’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the statute Barrow was charged with violating was unconstitutional is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.