US v. Larry Brown
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cr-00053-RLV-DCK-11, 5:15-cv-00118-RLV. Copies to all parties and the district court [999838872]. Mailed to: Larry Brown. [16-6099]
Appeal: 16-6099
Doc: 7
Filed: 06/01/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6099
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LARRY DON BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees,
District
Judge.
(5:13-cr-00053-RLV-DCK-11;
5:15-cv-00118-RLV)
Submitted:
May 26, 2016
Decided:
June 1, 2016
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Don Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6099
Doc: 7
Filed: 06/01/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Larry Don Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen
v.
545-47 (1949).
Beneficial
Indus.
Loan
Corp.,
337
U.S.
541,
Because the district court’s order makes clear
that Brown may raise the dismissed claims in a new § 2255 motion
upon the conclusion of his direct appeal, * we conclude that the
order Brown seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable
interlocutory
or
collateral
order.
Domino
Sugar
Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67
(4th Cir. 1993).
*
Brown appears to appeal the district court’s determination
out of concern that he will be barred from filing a later § 2255
motion. However:
If a habeas petitioner (state or federal) files an
application for collateral relief that raises a
successful appeal claim and additional claims, any
subsequent petition will be considered ‘second or
successive’ [only] if (a) the district court ruled on
the merits of the additional claims in the initial
petition, and (b) the petitioner seeks to raise those
claims again in the subsequent petition.
In re Williams, 444 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 2006).
2
Appeal: 16-6099
Doc: 7
Filed: 06/01/2016
Accordingly,
jurisdiction.
we
Pg: 3 of 3
dismiss
the
appeal
for
lack
of
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
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?