Opinion
22-6664
10-18-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEAN PAUL STITZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Dean Paul Stitz, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: October 13, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cr-00083-RJC-DCK-1)
Dean Paul Stitz, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Dean Paul Stitz seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for appointment of counsel to assist him with his pending motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He also seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his motion for reconsideration. 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 orders Stitz seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. See Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 967 (4th Cir. 1987). 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.
To the extent Stitz complains about undue delay by the district court in ruling on his motion for compassionate release, this appeal is not the appropriate vehicle to lodge such a complaint.