UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6064
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHARLETTE DUFRAY JOHNSON, a/k/a Charlotte Johnson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt,
Senior District Judge. (7:10-cr-00093-BR-1)
Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charlette Dufray Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley,
Assistant United States Attorney, Susan Beth Menzer, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charlette Dufray Johnson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying without prejudice Johnson’s pro se motions
to vacate her sentence * and for a hearing on that motion. 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).
“A judgment in a criminal case becomes final after
conviction and imposition of sentence.” United States v.
Hartwell, 448 F.3d 707, 712 (4th Cir. 2006). Although Johnson
previously was convicted and twice sentenced, this court
recently vacated her criminal judgment in part and remanded for
resentencing. Because the resentencing hearing has not yet
occurred, no final judgment has been entered in the district
court. We conclude the order Johnson 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 deny as moot Johnson’s motion to expedite. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
*
This motion was not brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012).
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3