US v. Michael Rufus, No. 09-7740 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7740 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL ALONZA RUFUS, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00550-MJP-1) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Alonza Rufus, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael court s text Alonza order Rufus denying seeks his to motions appeal for counsel, for discovery, and for a hearing. the bond, district to appoint We affirm in part and dismiss in part. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral 54(b); (1949). Rufus orders, Cohen v. 28 U.S.C. Beneficial § 1292 Indus. (2006); Loan Fed. Corp., R. 337 Civ. U.S. P. 541 The portion of the district court s order that denied motions to appoint counsel, for discovery, and for a hearing is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction. With regard to the part of the district court s order denying Rufus motion for bond, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. United States v. Rufus, No. 3:02-cr- 00550-MJP-1 (D.S.C. Aug. 20, 2009). part. We Accordingly, we affirm in We deny Rufus motion to place the appeal in abeyance. 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. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 2

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.