Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Galen Christopher PENDERGRASS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-06
Citations: 128 F. App'x 336
Docket Number: No. 05-6193
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Galen Christopher PENDERGRASS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 128
Pages: 336–337

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Galen Christopher PENDERGRASS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-6193.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 28, 2005.
Decided May 6, 2005.
Galen Christopher Pendergrass, Appellant pro se.
Jacabed Rodriguez-Coss, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Galen Christopher Pendergrass seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing one claim and directing him to respond regarding the timeliness of the remaining claims in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Pender-grass seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED