Jermal Daniels seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for release from solitary confinement. Daniels has been found guilty in his criminal proceedings but is awaiting sentencing. We 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); Cohen v. Benefi *342 cial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). In criminal proceedings sentencing is the final decision before which litigation has not ended. Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212, 58 S.Ct. 164, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937). In the criminal context, exceptions to the final judgment rule are rare. Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 265, 270, 104 S.Ct. 1051, 79 L.Ed.2d 288 (1984). The order Daniels seeks 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.