UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Rondell BUNDY, a/k/a Bun Rock, a/k/a Humps, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided: March 29, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Sean Rondell Bundy, Appellant Pro Se.
Sean Rondell Bundy seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Although the parties have not questioned our jurisdiction, “we have an independent obligation to verify the existence of appellate jurisdiction.” Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our jurisdiction is generally limited “to appeals from final decisions of the district courts ․ that end the litigation on the merits and leave nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Id. (internal alterations and quotation marks omitted). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Id. (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted). “Regardless of the label given a district court decision, if it appears from the record that the district court has not adjudicated all of the issues in a case, then there is no final order.” Id.
With these principles in mind, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to hear Bundy's appeal. Bundy's § 2255 motion raised seven separate claims, and the district court's memorandum and order analyzed and resolved only five of those claims. The court did not address Bundy's sixth claim, which asserted that his guilty plea should be set aside due to the cumulative ineffectiveness of his counsel, or his seventh claim, questioning whether, in light of Nat'l Fed. of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012), 21 U.S.C. § 841 operates constitutionally. Therefore, the district court's memorandum and order do not constitute a final judgment over which we have appellate jurisdiction.
We dismiss Bundy's appeal and remand to the district court for consideration of the two unaddressed claims. We express no opinion as to Bundy's other claims. 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
Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.