US v. Charlette Johnson, No. 14-6064 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6064 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CHARLETTE DUFRAY JOHNSON, a/k/a Charlotte Johnson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (7:10-cr-00093-BR-1) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charlette Dufray Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley, Assistant United States Attorney, Susan Beth Menzer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charlette Dufray Johnson seeks to appeal the district court s order denying without prejudice Johnson s pro se motions to vacate her sentence * and for a hearing on that motion. court may exercise jurisdiction only over final This 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). A judgment in a criminal case becomes final after conviction and imposition of sentence. United Hartwell, 448 F.3d 707, 712 (4th Cir. 2006). previously was convicted and twice States v. Although Johnson sentenced, this court recently vacated her criminal judgment in part and remanded for resentencing. Because the resentencing hearing has not yet occurred, no final judgment has been entered in the district court. a final We conclude the order Johnson seeks to appeal is neither order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, jurisdiction. dispense with lack of We deny as moot Johnson s motion to expedite. We oral we dismiss argument the because * appeal the for facts and legal This motion was not brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). 2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
