ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This courts review of this appeal reveals jurisdictional defects. First, appellant appears to designate various district court minute orders that are not substantively appealable.
1
See Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990) (explaining that court has jurisdiction only when statute or court rule provides for appeal). Second, to the extent, if any, that this appeal is in regard to appellants postconviction petition for writ of habeas corpus, no decision has been made on the petition when appellant filed the notices of appeal on September 8, 2022. See NRS 177.015(3) (stating that a defendant only may appeal from a final judgment or verdict). Accordingly, this court ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.
2
FOOTNOTES
1
. Appellant appears to designate the July 13, 2022, minute order denying an emergency motion and order for transportation of inmate for court appearance or, in the alternative, for appearance by telephonic or video conference, denying a motion to set aside dismissal in case A-17-758861-C, denying a motion for appointment of counsel, denying a motion to stay remittitur, denying a renewed motion for an order to suppress hearing, and denying a motion for Taleen Pandukht to read both direct appeal filed February 18, 2022, in district court case number C-21-357927-1. 2
. Given this order, this court takes no action on the pro se document filed on September 28, 2022.