UNITED STATES v. BRYAN III (2019)

John Roma Bryan, III, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). Although the parties have not questioned our jurisdiction, we “have an independent obligation to verify the existence of appellate jurisdiction.” Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 168 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Our review of the record reveals that the district court's order is not a final order because the court did not rule on Bryan's claims challenging the adequacy of the factual basis supporting his guilty plea to the firearm offense and asserting that counsel was ineffective at sentencing for failing to advise Bryan of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.23, p.s. (2015), and to argue for a downward departure under that Guidelines provision, all raised in his response to the Government's “Motion to Dismiss in Response to Petitioner's [§] 2255 Petition.” See Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696-97 (4th Cir. 2015).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claims. 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

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.