UNITED STATES v. HENDRIX (2021)

Joseph Abdul Hendrix seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of his motion for compassionate release. 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).

Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the claims raised in Hendrix's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his compassionate release motion. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, the court did not address Hendrix's assertion that he had exhausted his remedies under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1), nor did the court address whether immediate release was appropriate under that section, instead addressing only Hendrix's alternative request to serve the remainder of his sentence in a halfway house or on home confinement. We conclude that the order Hendrix 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 claims. 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Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.