United States v. John Bryan, III ( 2019 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6127
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN ROMA BRYAN, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big
Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (2:15-cr-00015-JPJ-6; 2:17-cv-81260-JPJ-
PMS)
Submitted: October 31, 2019 Decided: November 15, 2019
Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Roma Bryan, III, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Marie Harrigan Kulpa, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Roma Bryan, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). Although the parties have not questioned our
jurisdiction, we “have an independent obligation to verify the existence of appellate
jurisdiction.” Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 168 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation
marks omitted). We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Our review of the
record reveals that the district court’s order is not a final order because the court did not
rule on Bryan’s claims challenging the adequacy of the factual basis supporting his guilty
plea to the firearm offense and asserting that counsel was ineffective at sentencing for
failing to advise Bryan of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.23, p.s. (2015), and
to argue for a downward departure under that Guidelines provision, all raised in his
response to the Government’s “Motion to Dismiss in Response to Petitioner’s [§] 2255
Petition.” See Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696-97 (4th Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory and remand to the district court
for consideration of the unresolved claims. See id. 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
2