United States of America v. Kevin Alexander Scott

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6525
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN ALEXANDER SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00581-GLR-1; 1:16-cv-01930-GLR)
Submitted: August 18, 2022 Decided: August 23, 2022
Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Alexander Scott, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Alexander Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion and his motion for appointment of counsel. 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 the motion. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, the court failed to address whether
Scott’s designation as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines remains valid
following Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015).1 We conclude that the order
Scott 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.2 Id. at 699.
1 The district court denied Scott’s motion for appointment of counsel (after his
appointed counsel moved to withdraw) on the basis that Scott had “failed to articulate
specific facts” to support his career offender claim that he referenced in his motion for
appointment of counsel. However, the record shows that this claim was specifically and
thoroughly raised in his § 2255 motion.
2 We express no opinion on the merits of the claim.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 of 3 --