United States of America v. John Samuel Leigh, a/k/a J. R., a/k/a J.D.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6936
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN SAMUEL LEIGH, a/k/a J. R., a/k/a J.D.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:00-cr-00057-GMG-RWT-25)
Submitted: April 18, 2024 Decided: April 19, 2024
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Samuel Leigh, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Wagner, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
John Samuel Leigh seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion
seeking a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B), (c)(2) and § 404(b) of the
First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. 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 Leigh’s
arguments for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(B) and § 404(b) of the First Step
Act. We conclude that the order Leigh 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 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 --