Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Marilou F. Huling, 85 F.3d 617, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    33 views2 pages
    The document is an appellate court opinion dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It summarizes that the defendant appealed their conviction but the district court remanded the case to determine if a pre-sentence report was required, which is not a final order. As the appellate court can only hear appeals from final orders or certain interlocutory orders, and no sentence had been entered yet making it a final judgment, the court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-05-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 85 F.3d 617 Docket: 95-5786

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document is an appellate court opinion dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It summarizes that the defendant appealed their conviction but the district court remanded the case to determine if a pre-sentence report was required, which is not a final order. As the appellate court can only hear appeals from final orders or certain interlocutory orders, and no sentence had been entered yet making it a final judgment, the court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    33 views2 pages

    United States v. Marilou F. Huling, 85 F.3d 617, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is an appellate court opinion dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It summarizes that the defendant appealed their conviction but the district court remanded the case to determine if a pre-sentence report was required, which is not a final order. As the appellate court can only hear appeals from final orders or certain interlocutory orders, and no sentence had been entered yet making it a final judgment, the court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    85 F.

    3d 617

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation


    of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee,
    v.
    Marilou F. HULING, Defendant--Appellant.
    No. 95-5786.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted April 30, 1996.
    Decided May 7, 1996.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
    Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge; Tommy E.
    Miller, Magistrate Judge. (CR-95-78)
    Andrew M. Sacks, SACKS & SACKS, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.
    Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, John Phillip Ellington, Special
    Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    E.D.Va.
    DISMISSED.
    Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals the district court's order affirming her conviction, but
    remanding the case to the magistrate judge to determine whether a presentence
    report is required. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the
    order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

    orders,1 and certain interlocutory and collateral orders.2 In criminal cases, final
    judgment means that sentence has been entered.3 The parties acknowledge in
    their briefs that this appeal has brought to a halt the resentencing proceeding
    before the magistrate judge. The order here appealed is neither a final order nor
    an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
    2

    We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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

    28 U.S.C. 1291 (1988)

    28 U.S.C. 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial


    Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949)

    Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212-13 (1937)

    You might also like