United States of America v. Richard L. Bryant, a/k/a Pumpkin, a/k/a Rock

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6585
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD L. BRYANT, a/k/a Pumpkin, a/k/a Rock,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:92-cr-00088-6)
Submitted: September 18, 2020 Decided: October 2, 2020
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard L. Bryant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Richard L. Bryant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his “Emergency
Motion to Reopen Petition Under First Step Act of 2018 Based on Extraordinary and
Compelling Circumstances Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).” 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 Bryant’s motion. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, the court failed to address
Bryant’s claim that his heightened susceptibility to COVID-19 is an extraordinary and
compelling reason justifying compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
We conclude that the order Bryant 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 claim. Id. at 699. We
express no view as to the merits of the 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 of 2 --