Court Opinion

ID: 9840707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-19 21:00:50.395957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:07:46.324907
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6684      Doc: 6         Filed: 09/18/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6684

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        GERALD DAMONE HOPPER,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:95-cr-00119-MOC-SCR-1)

        Submitted: September 14, 2023                               Decided: September 18, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Gerald Damone Hopper, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6684       Doc: 6          Filed: 09/18/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Gerald Damone Hopper seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion

        to recuse the magistrate judge and to quash an arrest warrant. 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; Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541,

        545-46 (1949); see United States v. Sueiro, 946 F.3d 637, 639 (4th Cir. 2020) (“In the

        criminal context, . . . this Court generally does not have appellate jurisdiction until after the

        imposition of a sentence.”). The order Hopper seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor

        an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See, e.g., Mischler v. Bevin, 887 F.3d 271,

        271 (6th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (“[A]n order denying recusal is not immediately

        appealable under the collateral order doctrine.”).

               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