Categories: Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions

U.S. v. LENTZ, 332 Fed.Appx. 19 (4th Cir. 2009)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jay E. LENTZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-6159.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: August 20, 2009.
Decided: September 2, 2009.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00150-TSE-1).

Jay E. Lentz, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia Marie Haynes, Office of the United States Attorney, Erik R. Barnett, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jay Lentz seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel and his motion for appointment of an investigator. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Lentz 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 deny as moot Lentz’s motion to hold the case in abeyance. 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.

jdjungle