United States of America v. Malcolm Oneil Thomas, a/k/a Fresh

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6297
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MALCOLM ONEIL THOMAS, a/k/a Fresh,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cr-00136-TLW-4; 3:21-cv-
01052-TLW)
Submitted: February 13, 2025 Decided: April 14, 2025
Before AGEE, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Malcolm Oneil Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Malcolm Oneil Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 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 Thomas raised. Specifically, the court failed to address Thomas’s claim that counsel
rendered ineffective assistance at the first plea hearing by failing to move the court to
accept Thomas’s straight up guilty plea prior to the Government’s anticipated filing of a
21 U.S.C. § 851 information that would increase Thomas’s statutory sentencing range. We
therefore conclude that the order Thomas seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny as moot Thomas’s
motion to expedite, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand to the district
court for consideration of the unresolved claim. See id. at 699.
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 --