Court Opinion

ID: 9412351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-29 21:00:40.69356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:13.275888
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6492      Doc: 6        Filed: 07/28/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6492

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JEFFREY EDELEN,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:11-cr-00288-DKC-2; 8:16-cv-00866-
        DKC)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                            Decided: July 28, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jeffrey Edelen, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn M. Ellison, Special Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6492      Doc: 6         Filed: 07/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jeffrey Edelen seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the Government’s

        motion for an extension of time to file a consolidated response to Edelen’s 28 U.S.C.

        § 2255 motion and supplements. 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, 545-56 (1949).

        The order Edelen 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                       DISMISSED

                                                     2