Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Lee FOSTER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-17
Citations: 561 F. App'x 247
Docket Number: No. 13-7407
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Lee FOSTER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 561
Pages: 247–248

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Lee FOSTER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-7407.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 11, 2014.
Decided: March 17, 2014.
Kenneth Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Louise Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas A. O’Malley, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Lee Foster seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral or ders, 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 Foster seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Bridges v. Dep't of Md. State Police, 441 F.3d 197, 206 (4th Cir.2006) (stating that denial of motion to amend not immediately appealable); In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir.2005) (discussing cumulative finality). 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.