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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [1000033220]. Mailed to: Darron Goods. [16-7345]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7345 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/01/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7345 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARRON GOODS, a/k/a Moo Man, Defendant -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 Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?