United States v. Malcolm Tyler , 705 F. App'x 184 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6691
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MALCOLM DEMON TYLER, a/k/a Milt,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:13-cr-00009-FPS-JES-2;
5:16-cv-00094-FPS-JES)
Submitted: October 31, 2017 Decided: December 4, 2017
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Malcolm Demon Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Randolph John Bernard, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Malcolm Demon Tyler seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Before addressing the merits of Tyler’s appeal, we
must first be assured that we have jurisdiction. Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th
Cir. 2015). We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949).
“Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all
parties.” Porter, 803 F.3d at 696 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b). Generally, “a final decision is one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves
nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent.
Pension Fund of Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs & Participating Emp’rs, 134 S. Ct. 773,
779 (2014) (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.” Porter, 803 F.3d at 696.
Tyler initially challenged his career offender designation based on Johnson v.
United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), pursuant to this court’s authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion. Subsequently, Tyler was granted leave to supplement his
habeas motion, and Tyler filed a supplement raising claims based on Mathis v. United
States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016). Because the district court did not resolve the Mathis
claims raised in Tyler’s supplement, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See Porter,
803 F.3d at 695, 699.
2
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory and remand to the district
court for consideration of Tyler’s Mathis claims. We express no opinion regarding the
merits of Tyler’s claims. 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