UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7180
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN ANTHONY PETERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. W. Earl Britt,
Senior District Judge. (4:07-cr-00045-BR-1)
Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: March 4, 2016
Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Anthony Peterson, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Fritz,
Eric David Goulian, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Anthony Peterson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order characterizing his “Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Void
Judgment for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction” as a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion and denying the motion without prejudice to
Peterson filing on the proper form. On appeal, Peterson
contends that the court erred by characterizing his pleading as
a § 2255 motion and requests that this court or the district
court consider his motion as he presented it.
The district court did not provide the notice required
under Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003), before
recharacterizing Peterson’s pleading as an initial § 2255
motion. But we 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). The order Peterson seeks to appeal is neither a
final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623
(2015). 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
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3