Case Name: Billy G. ASEMANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The GOVERNMENT OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN; The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Khamenei; The Islamic Revolutionary Court; The Ministry of Intelligence and Security; The Counsel of Guardians; The Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance; The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps; Ali Fallahiankhuzestani; Hoffatol-Islam Nayerri, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-06
Citations: 276 F. App'x 287
Docket Number: No. 07-7431
Parties: Billy G. ASEMANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The GOVERNMENT OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN; The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Khamenei; The Islamic Revolutionary Court; The Ministry of Intelligence and Security; The Counsel of Guardians; The Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance; The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps; Ali Fallahiankhuzestani; Hoffatol-Islam Nayerri, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 276
Pages: 287–288

Head Matter:
Billy G. ASEMANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The GOVERNMENT OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN; The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Khamenei; The Islamic Revolutionary Court; The Ministry of Intelligence and Security; The Counsel of Guardians; The Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance; The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps; Ali Fallahiankhuzestani; Hoffatol-Islam Nayerri, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-7431.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 3, 2008.
Decided: May 6, 2008.
Billy G. Asemani, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Billy G. Asemani appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint without prejudice in this action filed under 18 U.S.C. § 2333 (2000). Although an order dismissing a complaint without prejudice generally is not an appealable order, see Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir.2005), the district court's order nonetheless qualifies as a final order subject to appeal because the action cannot be saved by merely amending the complaint. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993) (holding appellate court may evaluate particular grounds for dismissal to determine whether plaintiff could save action by merely amending complaint).
The district court properly found Asemani failed to establish he was a national of the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22) (2000). We therefore conclude the district court correctly decided Asemani lacked standing to proceed under 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a) (2000). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. We deny Asemani's motions for oral argument and for appointment of counsel. 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.
AFFIRMED.