United States v. Frye , 69 F. App'x 652 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6721
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES PRESTON FRYE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CR-01-167)
Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 31, 2003
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
James Preston Frye, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Ronald Hood, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Preston Frye appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion for release while his proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(2000) is pending, and his motion for appointment of counsel in
that proceeding.
As to Frye’s motion for release, we have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Frye,
No. CR-01-167 (E.D. Va. Apr. 22, 2003).
As to Frye’s motion for appointment of counsel, the district
court’s order denying the motion is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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). Accordingly, we dismiss this part
of 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
2