Court Opinion

ID: 9403959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 21:00:49.277056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:10.102307
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7404      Doc: 15         Filed: 06/20/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7404

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JEVON ANTHONY WARD,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:02-cr-00034-BO-1)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                          Decided: June 20, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jevon Anthony Ward, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7404      Doc: 15         Filed: 06/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jevon Anthony Ward seeks to appeal the district court’s order (a) denying Ward’s

        motion for compassionate release and to clarify the amended criminal judgment imposed

        in October 2019; and (b) dismissing Ward’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in part but allowing

        one of the advanced claims to proceed. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

        orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292;

        Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).

        The order that Ward seeks to appeal is neither a final order, given that litigation on his

        remaining § 2255 claim is ongoing, nor is it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

        Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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