Opinion
No. 13-7407
03-17-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH LEE FOSTER, Defendant - Appellant.
Kenneth Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Louise Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas A. O'Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00013-MR-DLH-8; 1:12-cv-00315-MR) Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Louise Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas A. O'Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Lee Foster seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Foster seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Bridges v. Dep't of Md. State Police, 441 F.3d 197, 206 (4th Cir. 2006) (stating that denial of motion to amend not immediately appealable); In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005) (discussing cumulative finality). Accordingly, 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