Case ID: f-appx_714/html/0288-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charlie THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-7384
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 8, 2018
    Decided: March 14, 2018
    Charlie Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Kyle David Pousson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee,
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charlie Thompson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 "U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the district court failed to address Thompson’s claim based on Dean v. United States, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1170, 197 L.Ed.2d 490 (2017), the order Thompson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696-97 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court for consideration of Thompson’s Dean claim. We express no opinion on the merits of any of Thompson’s claims. Wé 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