Case ID: f-appx_114/html/0571-02.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. Cornelius TUCKER, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-7565.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2004.
    Decided Nov. 23, 2004.
    Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Appellant pro se.
    Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Cornelius Tucker, Jr., seeks to appeal an order of the magistrate judge finding Tucker competent to stand trial for mailing threatening communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 876 (West 2000 & Supp.2004). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Piecemeal or interlocutory appeals are disfavored in the federal courts, especially in criminal cases. United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 853-54, 98 S.Ct. 1547, 56 L.Ed.2d 18 (1978). As the order Tucker seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order, we deny his motion to dismiss counsel and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED