US v. Aaron Coppedge


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:09-cr-00064-F-1,4:15-cv-0009-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000025579]. Mailed to: appellant. [16-6768]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6768 Doc: 5 Filed: 02/17/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6768 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. AARON COPPEDGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (4:09-cr-00064-F-1; 4:15-cv-00009-F) Submitted: February 15, 2017 Decided: February 17, 2017 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron Coppedge, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6768 Doc: 5 Filed: 02/17/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Aaron Coppedge seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the denying relief Although Government’s in “[t]he jurisdiction[,] his 28 parties . . motion . U.S.C. . we . for summary § 2255 (2012) . have an have judgment not independent and proceeding. questioned our obligation to verify the existence of appellate jurisdiction” and may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as omitted). to all parties.” “Regardless of Id. the (internal label given quotation marks district court a 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.” In cured, his Id. initial, Coppedge unsigned raised § 2255 eight motion, claims which involving he later ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment violations; due process allegedly erroneous sentencing enhancements. amended § 2255 ineffective investigate motion assistance an alibi and of raised trial witness; (2) 2 four violations; Coppedge filed an distinct counsel and for ineffective claims: (1) failing to assistance of Appeal: 16-6768 Doc: 5 Filed: 02/17/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 trial counsel for giving erroneous plea advice; (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to one sentencing enhancement; and (4) prosecutorial misconduct based on the alleged use of false testimony. Because additional court the claims “never motion].” district raised issued Id. a court in did the final not amended decision rule on § 2255 on the four motion, that [Coppedge’s § 2255 Thus, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and remand to the district court for consideration of Coppedge’s remaining four claims. We express no opinion on the ultimate disposition of the additional claims. the district claims.” court’s Id. “We [also] express no opinion regarding dismissal of [Coppedge’s] other [eight] 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 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?