The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
14-1710•Securities & Exchange Commission v. REX VENTURE GROUP, LLC, d/b/a Zeekrewards.com; RECEIVER FOR REX VENTURES GROUP, LLC
14-1710Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 7, 2015
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1710
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
and
JOHNNY BELSOME; TIMOTHY ALLEN; JODY HINKLEY; DONALD MARCEL;
KEITH HINKLEY; STARR ATCHISON; EDWARD THIEL; BRETT HUNTER;
TARA BELSOME, and those similarly situated,
Movants – Appellants,
v.
REX VENTURE GROUP, LLC, d/b/a Zeekrewards.com; RECEIVER FOR REX
VENTURES GROUP, LLC,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
PAUL R. BURKS; TRUDY GILMOND; KELLIE KING,
Defendants,
and
NATHANIEL WOODS,
Movant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (3:12-cv-00519-GCM)
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Submitted: December 22, 2014 Decided: January 7, 2015
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc R. Michaud, New Orleans, Louisiana, for Appellants. Irving
M. Brenner, Kenneth D. Bell, Matthew E. Orso, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Belsome, et al., appeal from the district
court’s order clarifying a prior order and directing that any
payments made by the Receiver be sent to a claimant’s home
address rather than any third party, including attorneys. 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). The
order the Appellants seek to appeal is neither a final order nor
an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly,
we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.
DISMISSED
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.