UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6944
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LARRY D. HILL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:15-cr-00265-BR-1; 5:17-cv-00067-BR)
Submitted: May 20, 2020 Decided: June 3, 2020
Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry D. Hill, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry D. Hill, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. This court 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); 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).
Although the district court properly construed most of Hill’s documents as part of
his collateral attack on his conviction and sentence, see Jehovah v. Clarke, 798 F.3d 169,
176 (4th Cir. 2015) (reiterating that pro se pleadings must be liberally construed), our
review of the record reveals that the court did not adjudicate all of the claims raised in those
documents. Specifically, the court failed to address Hill’s assertions that: (1) his guilty
plea was involuntary because prison officials refused to release him from the Special
Housing Unit (SHU) until he pled guilty; (2) the prosecutor prevented Hill from preparing
an adequate defense by insisting that he remain in the SHU; (3) the prosecutor knowingly
and maliciously prosecuted Hill based on tainted evidence; (4) the prosecution was racially
motivated (5) the violation of his constitutional rights during the prison disciplinary
proceedings affected the outcome of the related criminal proceedings; (6) his right to due
process was violated when he was convicted and sentenced based on tainted evidence; and
(7) when imposing his sentence, the district court should have considered his efforts to
improve himself in prison.
2
Because the order Hill seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand
to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claims. See Porter, 803 F.3d at
699. We deny Hill’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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