UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1394
PRAMCO II, LLC; EMIL HIRSCH; O’CONNOR &
HANNAN, LLP,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
and
AMMENDALE LIVING TRUST,
Garnishee,
versus
DAVID M. KISSI, Individually and in his
capacity as Co-Trustee of the Ammendale Living
Trust,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
EDITH TRUVILLION KISSI, Individually and in
her capacity as Co-Trustee of the Ammendale
Living Trust; AMMENDALE LIVING TRUST,
Defendants,
versus
CHRISTOPHER B. MEAD; RICHARD M. KREMEN; JOSE
ANDRADE,
Parties in Interest.
No. 05-1917
PRAMCO II, LLC,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
and
EMIL HIRSCH; O’CONNOR & HANNAN, LLP,
Plaintiffs,
versus
DAVID M. KISSI, Individually and in his
capacity as Co-Trustee of the Ammendale Living
Trust,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
EDITH TRUVILLION KISSI, Individually and in
her capacity as Co-Trustee of the Ammendale
Living Trust; AMMENDALE LIVING TRUST;
Defendants,
and
AMMENDALE LIVING TRUST,
Garnishee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER MEAD; RICHARD M. KREMEN; JOSE
ANDRADE,
Parties in Interest.
- 2 -
No. 05-4371
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID KISSI,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
EDITH TRUVILLION KISSI,
Defendant,
versus
PRAMCO II, LLC,
Party in Interest.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
03-2241-8-PJM; CR-03-473-PJM)
Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: May 25, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
- 3 -
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David M. Kissi, Appellant Pro Se. Emil Hirsch, James Patrick Ryan,
O’CONNOR & HANNAN, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Christopher Bowmar Mead,
LONDON & MEAD, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 4 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, David M. Kissi seeks to
appeal from the district court’s orders denying his motions for
reconsideration of the denial of his motion for leave to file suit
against Emil Hirsch, and denying his motion to disqualify the
district court judge. This court may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S.
541 (1949); see also Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 358
(1957) (criminal appeal generally premature until sentence has been
entered). The orders Kissi seeks to appeal are neither final
orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 5 -