Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Nacacio AMU, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-16
Citations: 109 F. App'x 554
Docket Number: No. 04-7010
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Nacacio AMU, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 554–554

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Nacacio AMU, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7010.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 9, 2004.
Decided Sept. 16, 2004.
Jose Nacacio Amu, Appellant pro se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Jose Nacacio Amu seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to amend his pending 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 Amu seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Amu's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED