UNITED STATES v. MOHAMADI (2020)

Mirwais Mohamadi seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.¹ The district court first denied Mohamadi's motion in 2017, and Mohamadi timely appealed. We dismissed the appeal as interlocutory and remanded to the district court for consideration of two unresolved claims: (1) whether Mohamadi's sentence is unconstitutional under Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015) (holding residual clause of Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), unconstitutionally vague), and (2) whether Mohamadi was denied the right to have a jury determine each element of his convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Mohamadi, 733 F. App'x 703, 704 (4th Cir. 2018).

On remand, the district court issued a new order purportedly denying Mohamadi's two remaining claims. The district court described the first claim as a question of whether Mohamadi's 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) convictions were unconstitutional under Johnson. The district court denied this claim, determining that the convictions remained valid because they were predicated on the offense of Hobbs Act robbery, which this court has determined is a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A)’s force clause.

The district court did not, however, address Mohamadi's claim regarding the impact of Johnson on the constitutionality of his sentence. Specifically, Mohamadi claimed in his first supplement to his § 2255 motion that his sentence enhancement under the ACCA was unconstitutional because, under Johnson, he no longer had three predicate convictions that qualified as violent felonies. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The district court has yet to dispose of this claim.²

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, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (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). We conclude that, because the district court has not addressed Mohamadi's claim regarding the constitutionality of his ACCA sentence enhancement, the order Mohamadi 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

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mohamadi's § 2255 motion comprises the original motion and two supplements, which the district court accepted and reviewed along with the original motion.

2.   The district court did dispose of Mohamadi's other remaining claim, but we cannot address the merits of the court's decision on that claim until the court issues a final order.

PER CURIAM:

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