Case ID: f-appx_404/html/0812-01.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. Pete Noble MUHAMMAD, a/k/a Pete Smith, a/k/a Jose, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-6052.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 30, 2010.
    Decided: Dec. 6, 2010.
    Pete Noble Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Anna Mills Wagoner, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Pete Noble Muhammad seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying various motions Muhammad had filed regarding his term of supervised release. In denying Muhammad relief, the district court noted that the issues raised in Muhammad’s motions would be addressed during the course of his then-pending supervised release revocation proceedings. 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, 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Muhammad 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.