US v. Leandra Smith, No. 08-6435 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6435 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LEANDRA SMITH, a/k/a Leanra Smith, a/k/a Rhonda L. Barber, Defendant - Appellant. No. 08-6436 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LEANDRA SMITH, a/k/a Leanra Smith, a/k/a Rhonda L. Barber, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:03-cr-00219-GCM-DCK-2) Submitted: July 2, 2008 Decided: Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. July 28, 2008 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leandra Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; David Alan Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. -2- PER CURIAM: In Appeal No. 08-6435, Leandra Smith seeks to appeal from the district court s order denying her motion to stay a prior order of the district court pending resolution of her appeal. On April 8, 2008, this court dismissed Smith s appeal from the district court s October 25, 2007 order. Smith s request that the district court stay the order pending appeal and her appeal from the denial of that stay are now moot. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot. Appeal No. 08-6436 is Smith s appeal from the district court s order denying her motion for substitution of appointed counsel prior to sentencing. 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). order nor The order Smith seeks to appeal is neither a final an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Having determined to dismiss Smith s appeals, we deny, as moot, her motion for a stay of the district court proceedings pending appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts -3- and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
