Case ID: f-appx_559/html/0220-01.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. Charlette Dufray JOHNSON, a/k/a Charlotte Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-6064.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 27, 2014.
    Decided: March 5, 2014.
    Charlette Dufray Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley, Assistant United States Attorney, Susan Beth Men-zer, Office of the united States ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charlette Dufray Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying without prejudice Johnson’s pro se motions to vacate her sentence and for a hearing on that motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); 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).

“A judgment in a criminal case becomes final after conviction and imposition of sentence.” United States v. Hartwell, 448 F.3d 707, 712 (4th Cir.2006). Although Johnson previously was convicted and twice sentenced, this court recently vacated her criminal judgment in part and remanded for resentencing. Because the re-sentencing hearing has not yet occurred, no final judgment has been entered in the district court. We conclude the order Johnson 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 deny as moot Johnson’s motion to expedite. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This motion was not brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012).