United States v. Joseph Hendrix ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7465
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH ABDUL HENDRIX,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:10-cr-00067-MR-WCM-2)
Submitted: December 21, 2020 Decided: January 15, 2021
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Abdul Hendrix, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Abdul Hendrix seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion
for reconsideration of his motion for compassionate release. 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 Hendrix’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of his compassionate
release motion. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, the court did not address Hendrix’s assertion
that he had exhausted his remedies under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1), nor did the court address
whether immediate release was appropriate under that section, instead addressing only
Hendrix’s alternative request to serve the remainder of his sentence in a halfway house or
on home confinement. We conclude that the order Hendrix 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 claims. 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