US v. Aaron Coppedge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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