UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7345
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRON GOODS, a/k/a Moo Man,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:06-cr-00309-JFM-9; 1:15-cv-03069-JFM)
Submitted: February 15, 2017 Decided: March 1, 2017
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darron Goods, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darron Goods appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. * Although the
parties have not challenged this court’s jurisdiction, we have a
duty to examine our jurisdiction sua sponte. United States v.
Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 246 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizing “our
independent obligation to satisfy ourselves of our
jurisdiction”). “This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over
final orders and certain interlocutory and collateral orders.”
Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th
Cir. 2015) (citation omitted); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292
(2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The Supreme Court has defined a
“final decision” as “one which ends the litigation on the merits
and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the
judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945).
An order is not final if it disposes of “‘fewer than all the
claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the
parties.’” Robinson v. Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913
(4th Cir. 1982) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)).
“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
* The district court granted a certificate of appealability.
2
order.” Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015).
This rule applies to collateral attacks on convictions. Id.
“[E]ven if a district court believes it has disposed of an
entire case, we lack appellate jurisdiction where the court in
fact has failed to enter judgment on all claims.” Id. at 696-
97.
In his § 2255 motion, Goods asserted that his trial lawyer
was ineffective for (1) failing to call witnesses who could have
bolstered his defense, and (2) failing to seek a limiting
instruction with regard to a key prosecution witness’ testimony
about Goods’ codefendant’s efforts to obstruct justice, and (3)
that the cumulative effect of these two omissions undermined
Goods’ convictions and sentence. Goods asserted a fourth claim
that the Government committed misconduct when it failed to
disclose to defense counsel material information about a
Government witness, pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and the
Due Process Clause, and that counsel was ineffective for failing
to press the Government for this information.
In denying relief on Goods’ § 2255 motion, the court
specifically addressed the first two claims. Because the court
did not rule on the remaining claims, the court “never issued a
final decision on” Goods’ § 2255 motion. Zook, 803 F.3d at 699.
Thus, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
3
Accordingly, we deny Goods’ motion for appointment of
counsel, dismiss the appeal, and remand to the district court
for consideration of Goods’ remaining two claims. We express no
opinion as to the disposition of those claims or the district
court’s denial of Goods’ other 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
4