Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07180/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07180-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Anthony Peterson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7180

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN ANTHONY PETERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. W. Earl Britt, 

Senior District Judge. (4:07-cr-00045-BR-1)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: March 4, 2016

Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Anthony Peterson, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Fritz, 

Eric David Goulian, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7180 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/04/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

John Anthony Peterson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order characterizing his “Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Void 

Judgment for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction” as a 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2012) motion and denying the motion without prejudice to 

Peterson filing on the proper form. On appeal, Peterson 

contends that the court erred by characterizing his pleading as 

a § 2255 motion and requests that this court or the district 

court consider his motion as he presented it.

The district court did not provide the notice required 

under Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003), before 

recharacterizing Peterson’s pleading as an initial § 2255 

motion. But we 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 (1949). The order Peterson seeks to appeal is neither a 

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 

See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 

(2015). 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 

Appeal: 15-7180 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/04/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7180 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/04/2016 Pg: 3 of 3