Opinion
20-6336
09-13-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ARMISTEAD D. MYERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Paresh S. Patel, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: August 31, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00188-CCB-1; 1:16-cv-02371-CCB)
ON BRIEF:
Paresh S. Patel, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Armistead D. Myers seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). "Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties." Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the claims raised in the § 2255 motion. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, the court did not address Myers' challenge to his career offender enhancement in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), advanced in his instant § 2255 motion prior to amendment. It does not appear that Myers intended to abandon that claim during the pendency of his § 2255 motion. We therefore conclude that the order Myers seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claim. Porter, 803 F.3d at 699.
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 AND REMANDED