United States of America, Respondent, v. George Van Wagner, Petitioner, 955 F.2d 43 (4th Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 955 F.2d 43 (4th Cir. 1992) Submitted Feb. 3, 1992. Decided Feb. 19, 1992

On Petition for Permission to Appeal.

George Van Wagner, petitioner pro se.

Corey Justin Smith, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Va., for respondent.

PETITION DENIED.

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:


George Van Wagner seeks permission to take an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1988) of the district court's orders denying his motions for appointment of counsel and discovery. This Court only has jurisdiction to consider appeals brought under § 1292(b) if the district court certifies that the order appealed from "involves a controlling question of law" and that immediate appeal would "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." The district court has not made such a certification in this case. In addition, the orders appealed from are neither appealable final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291(a) (1988), nor appealable collateral orders, Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). See Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962 (4th Cir.) (appointment of counsel), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 903 (1987); North Carolina Ass'n of Black Lawyers v. North Carolina Bd. of Law Examiners; 538 F.2d 547 (4th Cir. 1976) (discovery).

We deny the petition for permission to take an interlocutory appeal. 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.

PETITION DENIED.