United States of America v. Dontay Lafon Armstrong

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONTAY LAFON ARMSTRONG,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 22-7185
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONTAY LAFON ARMSTRONG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (3:20-cr-00447-KDB-DCK-1)
Submitted: April 25, 2023 Decided: April 28, 2023

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dontay Lafon Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Dontay Lafon Armstrong noted a second appeal of
his criminal judgment (No. 22-7006) and seeks to appeal the district court’s text order
denying as moot his motion for request of documents to aid in preparing a 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion (No. 22-7185). Armstrong pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute at
least 280 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846; two
counts of possession with intent to distribute at least 28 grams of cocaine base, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B); and one count of possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).* The district court
sentenced Armstrong to a total of 240 months’ imprisonment. Armstrong previously
appealed his sentence, and this court dismissed the appeal. United States v. Armstrong,
No. 21-4415 (4th Cir. Mar. 29, 2022) (unpublished order). Armstrong now notes a second
appeal of the criminal judgment. Because this court dismissed Armstrong’s prior appeal,
we dismiss the second appeal as duplicative.
As to the district court’s text order denying as moot Armstrong’s motion for request
of documents, 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);
* Section 924(a)(2) was amended and no longer provides the penalty for § 922(g)
convictions; the new penalty provision in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8) sets forth a statutory
maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for a § 922(g) offense. See Bipartisan Safer
Communities Act, Pub. L. No. 117-159, § 12004(c), 136 Stat. 1313, 1329 (2022). The 15-
year statutory maximum does not apply in this case, however, because Armstrong’s offense
was committed before the June 25, 2022, amendment to the statute.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Armstrong
seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order,
and Armstrong’s § 2255 motion remains pending in the district court.
Accordingly, we dismiss appeal No. 22-7185 for lack of jurisdiction and dismiss
appeal No. 22-7006 as duplicative. 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

-- 4 of 4 --