Court Opinion

ID: 9882016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:00:34.658556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:18.583809
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6092      Doc: 13         Filed: 10/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6092

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        LAMONT E. MCCORD,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00387-REP-2)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Lamont E. McCord, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6092      Doc: 13         Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Lamont E. McCord seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to

        appoint counsel and to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying his

        motion for a reduction in sentence and granting his motion for an extension of time to file

        a supplement to his motion for compassionate release. 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). Because McCord’s motion for compassionate release is still pending

        in the district court, the order McCord seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an

        appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant McCord’s motion to

        seal his informal brief, and 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