Court Opinion

ID: 9945992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 21:00:53.813603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:21.182270
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6920      Doc: 9         Filed: 02/27/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6920

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JOHN DOE,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:95-cr-00076-D-1)

        Submitted: February 22, 2024                                  Decided: February 27, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        John Doe, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6920      Doc: 9        Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               John Doe seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to recuse.

        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 Doe seeks to appeal

        is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See In re Va.

        Elec. & Power Co., 539 F.2d 357, 364 (4th Cir. 1976). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

        for lack of jurisdiction. We grant Doe’s motion to seal to the extent he seek to proceed by

        pseudonym, but we deny his request to seal the entire case. 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