Case Name: Eusebio ALFONSO-JORRIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES; United States Supreme Court; U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service; John Ashcroft, United States Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-16
Citations: 109 F. App'x 557
Docket Number: No. 04-7022
Parties: Eusebio ALFONSO-JORRIN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES; United States Supreme Court; U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service; John Ashcroft, United States Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 557–557

Head Matter:
Eusebio ALFONSO-JORRIN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES; United States Supreme Court; U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service; John Ashcroft, United States Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-7022.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 9, 2004.
Decided Sept. 16, 2004.
Eusebio Alfonso-Jorrin, Appellant pro se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Eusebio Alfonso-Jorrin seeks to appeal the district court's order placing his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's decision in Benitez v. Wallis, 337 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir.2003), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 1143, 157 L.Ed.2d 966 (2004). 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 Alfonso-Jorrin seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED