UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4085
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JERMAL DANIELS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00103)
Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: March 30, 2007
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin A. Tate, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Karen S. Marston, Kevin
Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jermal Daniels seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion for release from solitary confinement. Daniels
has been found guilty in his criminal proceedings but is awaiting
sentencing. We 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); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan
Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). In criminal proceedings sentencing is
the final decision before which litigation has not ended.
Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212 (1937). In the criminal
context, exceptions to the final judgment rule are rare.
Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 265, 270 (1984). The
order Daniels seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable 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
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
*
Moreover, Daniels relief, if any, would be in the form of a
civil action. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)
(finding segregation did not violate prisoner’s civil rights).
Extended stays on administrative segregation, however, do not
ordinarily implicate a protected liberty interest. Beverati v.
Smith, 120 F.3d 500, 502 (4th Cir. 1997) (regarding six month
stay).
- 2 -