United States of America v. Ernest Dwayne Riley, a/k/a Simba Johnson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6092
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERNEST DWAYNE RILEY, a/k/a Simba Johnson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:19-cr-00124-RAJ-RJK-1; 2:20-cv-
00418-RAJ-RJK)
Submitted: March 16, 2022 Decided: April 12, 2022
Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ernest Dwayne Riley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ernest Dwayne Riley seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions. 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 that Riley raised during the § 2255 proceedings. More specifically, the court did
not consider Riley’s argument that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing
to object to the use of his vacated state conviction as a predicate for his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)
conviction. We therefore conclude that each order Riley seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Porter, 803 F.3d at 696-97.
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 on the
merits of any of Riley’s claims. We deny Riley’s motion for a certificate of appealability
as unnecessary, deny as moot his motion to remand, and 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 --