Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Wayne LEWIS, Defendant- Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-22
Citations: 308 F. App'x 682
Docket Number: No. 08-7518
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Wayne LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 308
Pages: 682–682

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Wayne LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-7518.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 15, 2009.
Decided: Jan. 22, 2009.
Ronald Wayne Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Christopher Nunnally, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Wayne Lewis seeks to appeal from the district court's order denying his motion to dismiss the criminal charges against him based on an alleged Speedy Trial Act violation, and denying his motion for transcripts. 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 order Lewis seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 853-54, 98 S.Ct. 1547, 56 L.Ed.2d 18 (1978); United States v. Buchanan, 946 F.2d 325 (4th Cir.1991). Accordingly, we deny Lewis' motions for appointment of counsel and to dismiss the charges against him, deny his remaining pending motions, 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.