US v. Darron Good
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Darron Goods. [16-7345]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
February 15, 2017
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Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. *
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
“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
(2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
The Supreme Court has defined a
“final decision” as “one which ends the litigation on the merits
Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945).
An order is not final if it disposes 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.
Pg: 3 of 4
Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015).
This rule applies to collateral attacks on convictions.
entire case, we lack appellate jurisdiction where the court in
fact has failed to enter judgment on all claims.”
Id. at 696-
In his § 2255 motion, Goods asserted that his trial lawyer
was ineffective for (1) failing to call witnesses who could have
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.
Goods asserted a fourth claim
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.
specifically addressed the first two claims.
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.
Pg: 4 of 4
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
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?