UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4033
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 16-4041
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 16-4042
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:14-cr-00240-BR-1)
Submitted: June 21, 2016 Decided: July 8, 2016
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
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.
3
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
4