Case Name: Mirza KUNJUNDZIC, a/k/a Mirza Kujundzic, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-18
Citations: 514 F. App'x 346
Docket Number: No. 13-110
Parties: Mirza KUNJUNDZIC, a/k/a Mirza Kujundzic, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.
Judges: Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 514
Pages: 346–347

Head Matter:
Mirza KUNJUNDZIC, a/k/a Mirza Kujundzic, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.
No. 13-110.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 11, 2013.
Decided: March 18, 2013.
Mirza Kunjundzic, Appellant Pro Se. Albert David Copperthite, Sujit Raman, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland; James Andrew Crowell, IV, Christen Anne Sproule, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Respondent.
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mirza Kunjundzic petitions for permission to appeal the district court's order denying the relief he requested in his pro se pretrial motions in his criminal case. See Fed. R.App. P. 5. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This court may exercise ju risdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); 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 Kunjundzic seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order. See United States v. North Am. Coal Exch., 676 F.2d 99, 100 (4th Cir.1982). Accordingly, we grant the Government's motion and dismiss the petition 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.
PETITION DISMISSED.