Case ID: f-appx_222/html/0341-01.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. Jermal DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-4085.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 22, 2007.
    Decided: March 30, 2007.
    Kevin A. Tate, Federal Defenders of Western North Carolina, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Karen S. Marston, Kevin Zolot, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Jermal Daniels seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for release from solitary confinement. Daniels has been found guilty in his criminal proceedings but is awaiting sentencing. We 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. Benefi cial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). In criminal proceedings sentencing is the final decision before which litigation has not ended. Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212, 58 S.Ct. 164, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937). In the criminal context, exceptions to the final judgment rule are rare. Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 265, 270, 104 S.Ct. 1051, 79 L.Ed.2d 288 (1984). The order Daniels seeks to appeal 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. 
      
       Moreover, Daniels relief, if any, would be in the form of a civil action. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (finding segregation did not violate prisoner’s civil rights). Extended stays on administrative segregation, however, do not ordinarily implicate a protected liberty interest. Beverati v. Smith, 120 F.3d 500, 502 (4th Cir.1997) (regarding six month stay).