United States v. Robertson
United States v. Darryle Edward ROBERTSON, a/k/a Tiger
Attorneys
Darryle Edward Robertson, Appellant Pro Se. John- Francis Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Stephen Schenning, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Darryle Edward Robertson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order rescinding the order granting his motion for appointment of counsel. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Robertson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. 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.