Narrative Opinion Summary
Albert Charles Burgess, Jr. appealed a district court's order denying his motion for the presiding judge to recuse himself regarding a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the order in question was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as interlocutory. The court noted that oral argument was unnecessary as the issues were adequately presented in the written materials.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dismissal of Appeal as Interlocutorysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the order being appealed was interlocutory, which means it was not suitable for appeal at this stage.
Reasoning: Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as interlocutory.
Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the order was not a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order as defined under the relevant statutes.
Reasoning: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the order in question was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292.
Necessity of Oral Argumentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that oral argument was not necessary for this case because the issues were sufficiently addressed in the written submissions.
Reasoning: The court noted that oral argument was unnecessary as the issues were adequately presented in the written materials.