Case ID: f-appx_699/html/0211-01.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. Michael RANKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-6834
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: October 17, 2017
    Decided: October 20, 2017
    Michael Rankins, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Fritz, Jacob D, Pugh, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.
    Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Rankins seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his pro se motion to be released on personal recognizance. 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). The order Rankins 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 Rankins’ motions for a change of venue and for appointment of new counsel, and 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