Case Name: Henk Orlando ROMMY, In the matter of the Extradition of, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-22
Citations: 641 F. App'x 286
Docket Number: No. 15-7955
Parties: Henk Orlando ROMMY, In the matter of the Extradition of, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 641
Pages: 286–286

Head Matter:
Henk Orlando ROMMY, In the matter of the Extradition of, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-7955.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2016.
Decided: March 22, 2016.
Brian Joseph Kornbrath, Federal Defender, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. .
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henk Orlando Rommy seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his appeal of the magistrate judge's order certifying his extradition pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184 (2012). 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Rommy seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Zhenli Ye Gon v. Holt, 774 F.3d 207, 210-11 (4th Cir.2014), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2859, 192 L.Ed.2d 895 (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 before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.