Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Alonza RUFUS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-25
Citations: 353 F. App'x 856
Docket Number: No. 09-7740
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Alonza RUFUS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 353
Pages: 856–857

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Alonza RUFUS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-7740.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2009.
Decided: Nov. 25, 2009.
Michael Alonza Rufus, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Alonza Rufus seeks to appeal the district court's text order denying his motions for bond, to appoint counsel, for discovery, and for a hearing. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
This court may exercise jurisdiction 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The portion of the district court's order that denied Rufus' motions to appoint counsel, for discovery, and for a hearing is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction.
With regard to the part of the district court's order denying Rufus' motion for bond, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. United States v. Rufus, No. 3:02-cr00550-MJP-1 (D.S.C. Aug. 20, 2009). Accordingly, we affirm in part. We deny Rufus' motion to place the appeal in abeyance. 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.