Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
In these consolidated appeals, William Scott Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's pretrial detention order, the district court's oral order denying 33 motions, and the district court's written order denying 38 other motions in his pending criminal matter. 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). This Court has jurisdiction only over Davis' appeal from the district court's order denying his pro se motion to vacate the magistrate judge's detention order. See 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) (2012). All other orders Davis seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss Davis' appeals of these orders for lack of jurisdiction.
Turning to the district court's denial of Davis' motion to vacate, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Davis' informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's denial of his motion to vacate the detention order, Davis has forfeited appellate review of that denial. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying Davis' motion to vacate the detention order.
We deny Davis' motions to consolidate additional appeals, to appoint counsel, and for transcript at government expense. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
PER CURIAM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-4033, No. 16-4041, No. 16-4042
Decided: July 08, 2016
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)