United States v. Aaron Coppedge , 676 F. App'x 213 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6768
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AARON COPPEDGE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (4:09-cr-00064-F-1; 4:15-cv-00009-F)
Submitted: February 15, 2017 Decided: February 17, 2017
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aaron Coppedge, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Coppedge seeks to appeal the district court’s order
granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment and
denying relief in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) proceeding.
Although “[t]he parties . . . have not questioned our
jurisdiction[,] . . . we have an independent obligation to
verify the existence of appellate jurisdiction” and may exercise
jurisdiction only over final orders and certain interlocutory
and collateral orders. Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th
Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Ordinarily, a
district court order is not final until it has resolved all
claims as to all parties.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Regardless of the label given a district court
decision, if it appears from the record that the district court
has not adjudicated all of the issues in a case, then there is
no final order.” Id.
In his initial, unsigned § 2255 motion, which he later
cured, Coppedge raised eight claims involving ineffective
assistance of trial and appellate counsel; Fourth, Fifth, and
Sixth Amendment violations; due process violations; and
allegedly erroneous sentencing enhancements. Coppedge filed an
amended § 2255 motion and raised four distinct claims: (1)
ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to
investigate an alibi witness; (2) ineffective assistance of
2
trial counsel for giving erroneous plea advice; (3) ineffective
assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to one
sentencing enhancement; and (4) prosecutorial misconduct based
on the alleged use of false testimony.
Because the district court did not rule on the four
additional claims raised in the amended § 2255 motion, that
court “never issued a final decision on [Coppedge’s § 2255
motion].” Id. Thus, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and remand to the
district court for consideration of Coppedge’s remaining four
claims. We express no opinion on the ultimate disposition of
the additional claims. “We [also] express no opinion regarding
the district court’s dismissal of [Coppedge’s] other [eight]
claims.” Id. 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
3