Court Opinion

ID: 1012247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:42:04.015053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:37.149667
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-7395

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR.,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-01-240)

Submitted:   December 18, 2003            Decided:   January 16, 2004

Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William M. Bryson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Regan Alexandra
Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            William M. Bryson, Jr., seeks to appeal from the district

court’s    order   denying   his    request     that   the   court    direct   the

Internal    Revenue   Service      to   present    evidence    to    support   the

forfeiture of various parcels of real estate.                  This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (2000).     Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).           The order Bryson 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

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                       DISMISSED

                                        - 2 -