US v. Darron Good

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999943035-2]. Originating case numbers: 1:06-cr-00309-JFM-9, 1:15-cv-03069-JFM. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000033220]. Mailed to: Darron Goods. [16-7345]

Appeal: 16-7345

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/01/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7345

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRON GOODS, a/k/a Moo Man,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:06-cr-00309-JFM-9; 1:15-cv-03069-JFM)

Submitted:

February 15, 2017

Decided:

March 1, 2017

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darron Goods, Appellant Pro Se.
Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7345

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/01/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Darron

Goods

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. *

denying

Although the

parties have not challenged this court’s jurisdiction, we have a
duty to examine our jurisdiction sua sponte.

United States v.

Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 246 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizing “our
independent

obligation

jurisdiction”).

to

satisfy

ourselves

of

our

“This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders and certain interlocutory and collateral orders.”
Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th
Cir.

2015)

(citation

omitted);

see

(2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

28

U.S.C.

§§

1291,

1292

The Supreme Court has defined a

“final decision” as “one which ends the litigation on the merits
and

leaves

judgment.”

nothing

for

the

court

to

do

but

execute

the

Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945).

An order is not final if it disposes of “‘fewer than all the
claims

or

parties.’”

the

rights

and

liabilities

of

fewer

than

all

the

Robinson v. Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913

(4th Cir. 1982) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)).
“Regardless of the label given a district court 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
*

The district court granted a certificate of appealability.

2

Appeal: 16-7345

Doc: 10

order.”

Filed: 03/01/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015).

This rule applies to collateral attacks on convictions.
“[E]ven

if

a

district

court

believes

it

has

disposed

Id.
of

an

entire case, we lack appellate jurisdiction where the court in
fact has failed to enter judgment on all claims.”

Id. at 696-

97.
In his § 2255 motion, Goods asserted that his trial lawyer
was ineffective for (1) failing to call witnesses who could have
bolstered

his

defense,

and

(2)

failing

to

seek

a

limiting

instruction with regard to a key prosecution witness’ testimony
about Goods’ codefendant’s efforts to obstruct justice, and (3)
that the cumulative effect of these two omissions undermined
Goods’ convictions and sentence.
that

the

disclose

Government
to

defense

committed

Goods asserted a fourth claim
misconduct

counsel

material

when

it

information

failed
about

to
a

Government witness, pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and the
Due Process Clause, and that counsel was ineffective for failing
to press the Government for this information.
In

denying

relief

on

Goods’

§ 2255

specifically addressed the first two claims.

motion,

the

court

Because the court

did not rule on the remaining claims, the court “never issued a
final decision on” Goods’ § 2255 motion.

Zook, 803 F.3d at 699.

Thus, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
3

Appeal: 16-7345

Doc: 10

Accordingly,

Filed: 03/01/2017

we

deny

Pg: 4 of 4

Goods’

motion

for

appointment

of

counsel, dismiss the appeal, and remand to the district court
for consideration of Goods’ remaining two claims.

We express no

opinion as to the disposition of those claims or the district
court’s denial of Goods’ other claims.

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

4