Opinion
22-7360
03-24-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRANDON MARQUIS JENNINGS, a/k/a Smilez, a/k/a Smilez Finesse, a/k/a Beezy, Mustafa Bey, Defendant-Appellant.
Brandon Marquis Jennings, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: March 21, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00318-FL-1; 5:22-cv-00305-FL)
Brandon Marquis Jennings, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Brandon Marquis Jennings seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to appoint counsel and denying his motion for bail in connection with his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 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 on appeal is not a final order, and the portion of the order denying the motion to appoint counsel is not an appealable interlocutory decision. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal.
The district court's denial of bail falls within the collateral order doctrine and is immediately appealable. See Pagan v. United States, 353 F.3d 1343, 1345-46 (11th Cir. 2003) (collecting cases adopting rule). We have reviewed the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district's order. United States v. Jennings, No. 5:18-cr-00318-FL-1 (E.D. N.C. Nov. 4, 2022). 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 IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART.