UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7373
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS DEMOND ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:03-cr-00616-HMH-1)
Submitted: February 25, 2020 Decided: March 3, 2020
Before MOTZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carlos Demond Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Demond Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his
motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) (2018) and the First Step
Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). We may exercise jurisdiction
only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018). “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 Robinson raised in his motion for sentence reduction. Robinson requested that the
district court reduce his sentences for trafficking in cocaine base, pursuant to Section 404
of the First Step Act, and vacate his § 924(c) convictions, in light of Section 403’s
amendments to that statute. The district court denied Robinson’s request in part, finding
that Section 403 of the First Step Act is non-retroactive and therefore affords Robinson no
relief regarding his § 924(c) convictions. The district court, however, did not address
Robinson’s request for relief under Section 404 of the First Step Act. Accordingly, we
conclude that the order Robinson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction
and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claim. 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