Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Antonio LOZANO, Claimant-Appellant, and Property, 3714 Cancun Loop, Webb County, Laredo, Texas, with all Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon, Defendant, v. Hill Top Farm, Limited, a Texas limited partnership, Claimant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-21
Citations: 30 F. App'x 312
Docket Number: No. 01-2269
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Antonio LOZANO, Claimant-Appellant, and Property, 3714 Cancun Loop, Webb County, Laredo, Texas, with all Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon, Defendant, v. Hill Top Farm, Limited, a Texas limited partnership, Claimant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 312–312

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Antonio LOZANO, Claimant-Appellant, and Property, 3714 Cancun Loop, Webb County, Laredo, Texas, with all Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon, Defendant, v. Hill Top Farm, Limited, a Texas limited partnership, Claimant.
No. 01-2269.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 14, 2002.
Decided March 21, 2002.
Jose Antonio Lozano, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne P. Klauer, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jose Antonio Lozano appeals the district court's order denying his motions for a transcript and for application of a specific statute. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); 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 here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.