Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Anthony PETERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-04
Citations: 637 F. App'x 103
Docket Number: No. 15-7180
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Anthony PETERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 103–104

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Anthony PETERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-7180.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 17, 2015.
Decided: March 4, 2016.
John Anthony Peterson, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Fritz, Eric David Goulian, Office of the United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Anthony Peterson seeks to appeal the district court's order characterizing his "Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Void Judgment for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction" as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying the motion without prejudice to Peterson filing, on the proper form. On appeal, Peterson contends that the court erred by characterizing his pleading as a § 2255 motion and requests that this court or the district court consider his motion as he presented it.
The district court did not provide the notice required under Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383, 124 S.Ct. 786, 157 L.Ed.2d 778 (2003), before recharac-terizing Peterson's pleading as an initial § 2255 motion. But we 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 Peterson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir.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.