
    PRAMCO II, LLC; Emil Hirsch; O’Connor & Hannan, LLP, Plaintiffs—Appellees, and Ammendale Living Trust, Garnishee, v. David M. KISSI, Individually and in his capacity as Co-Trustee of the Ammendale Living Trust, Defendant—Appellant, and Edith Truvillion Kissi, Individually and in her capacity as Co-Trustee of the Ammendale Living Trust; Ammendale Living Trust, Defendants, v. Christopher B. Mead; Richard M. Kremen; Jose Andrade, Parties in Interest. Pramco II, LLC, Plaintiff—Appellee, and Emil Hirsch; O’Connor & Hannan, LLP, Plaintiffs, v. David M. Kissi, Individually and in his capacity as Co-Trustee of the Ammendale Living Trust, Defendant—Appellant, and Edith Truvillion Kissi, Individually and in her capacity as Co-Trustee of the Ammendale Living Trust; Ammendale Living Trust; Defendants, and Ammendale Living Trust, Garnishee, v. Christopher Mead; Richard M. Kremen; Jose Andrade, Parties in Interest. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David Kissi, Defendant—Appellant, and Edith Truvillion Kissi, Defendant, v. Pramco II, LLC, Party in Interest.
    No. 05-1394, 05-1917, 05-4371.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 18, 2006.
    Decided May 25, 2006.
    
      David M. Kissi, Appellant Pro Se. Emil Hirsch, James Patrick Ryan, O’Connor & Hannan, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Christopher Bowmar Mead, London & Mead, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
    Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, David M. Kissi seeks to appeal from the district court’s orders denying his motions for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for leave to file suit against Emil Hirsch, and denying his motion to disqualify the district court judge. 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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949); see also Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 358, 77 S.Ct. 481, 1 L.Ed.2d 393 (1957) (criminal appeal generally premature until sentence has been entered). The orders Kissi seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED  