Case ID: f-appx_311/html/0645-01.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. Robert B. CLARKSON, 515 Concord Avenue, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-6477.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 29, 2009.
    Decided: Feb. 28, 2009.
    Robert B. Clarkson, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Westmoreland Rose, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, NC, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

The Appellant, Robert B. Clarkson, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion under Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g) seeking return of evidence seized during a search and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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); 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 orders Clarkson seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. See United States v. Reg’l Consulting Servs. for Econ. and Cmty. Dev., Inc., 766 F.2d 870, 874-75 (4th Cir.1985). 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.