Case ID: f-appx_131/html/0965-01.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. Alejandro REYES, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-6159.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 19, 2005.
    Decided May 25, 2005.
    Alejandro Reyes, Appellant pro se. N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Alejandro Reyes appeals from the district court’s order dismissing one of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) claims but retaining jurisdiction over his remaining claims. This court has 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). A final decision is one that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945). When a district court dismisses fewer than all claims as to the order, it is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Baird v. Palmer, 114 F.3d 39, 42 (4th Cir.1997).

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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