Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06486/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06486-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Veotis Harding
Appellant
John W. Owens
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6486

VEOTIS HARDING,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOHN W. OWENS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:13-hc-02212-BO)

Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: September 3, 2015

Before WILKINSON and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Veotis Harding, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6486 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/03/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Veotis Harding seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

construing his “motion of actual innocence” as one under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), and docketing it within his criminal case. 

The motion is proceeding in Harding’s criminal docket.* 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 (1949). The 

order Harding 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 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

 * Although the clerk’s order accompanying the district 

court’s order states that “respondent’s motion to dismiss is 

granted and this action is hereby dismissed,” the motion is 

proceeding under Harding’s criminal docket. Thus, the clerk’s 

order is erroneous. 

Appeal: 15-6486 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/03/2015 Pg: 2 of 2