Court Opinion

ID: 9374751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 21:00:36.501254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.692929
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7124      Doc: 13         Filed: 02/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7124

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        WAYNE EARL JENKINS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cr-00106-CCB-4)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                 Decided: February 22, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Wayne Earl Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7124       Doc: 13         Filed: 02/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Wayne Earl Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his “Motion

        to Reopen and for Reconsideration of Restitution.” But no such order exists because the

        district court has yet to resolve Jenkins’ motion. The last action that the district court took

        on the motion was ordering a Government response. To the extent that Jenkins might seek

        to appeal that order, it is not appealable. See United States v. Doe, 962 F.3d 139, 143 (4th

        Cir. 2020) (“[W]e have jurisdiction only over final orders and certain interlocutory and

        collateral orders”). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. 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

                                                      2