-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-6092 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERNEST DWAYNE RILEY, a/k/a Simba Johnson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:19-cr-00124-RAJ-RJK-1; 2:20-cv- 00418-RAJ-RJK) Submitted: March 16, 2022 Decided: April 12, 2022 Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernest Dwayne Riley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ernest Dwayne Riley seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions. 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 that Riley raised during the § 2255 proceedings. More specifically, the court did not consider Riley’s argument that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the use of his vacated state conviction as a predicate for his
18 U.S.C. § 922(g) conviction. We therefore conclude that each order Riley seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Porter, 803 F.3d at 696-97. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claim. Id. at 699. We express no view on the merits of any of Riley’s claims. We deny Riley’s motion for a certificate of appealability as unnecessary, deny as moot his motion to remand, and 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 2
Document Info
Docket Number: 21-6092
Filed Date: 4/12/2022
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/13/2022