Case ID: f-appx_222/html/0302-02.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. Peter Kay STERN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-8017.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 22, 2007.
    Decided: March 30, 2007.
    
      Peter Kay Stern, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, 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    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Peter Kay Stern seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying various motions that he filed along with his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, including motions to disqualify all of the judges of the Western District of North Carolina and the U.S. Attorney, a motion for release on bond, a motion for copies of grand jury transcripts, a motion to produce a witness at a hearing, and a motion for a gag order. 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 order Stern seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Stern’s motion for summary judgment and 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.