Court Opinion

ID: 9391093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-29 21:00:28.822363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.264563
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7006     Doc: 7         Filed: 04/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7006

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DONTAY LAFON ARMSTRONG,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

                                              No. 22-7185

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DONTAY LAFON ARMSTRONG,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
        at Charlotte. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (3:20-cr-00447-KDB-DCK-1)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                          Decided: April 28, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7006      Doc: 7        Filed: 04/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Dontay Lafon Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7006      Doc: 7         Filed: 04/28/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               In these consolidated appeals, Dontay Lafon Armstrong noted a second appeal of

        his criminal judgment (No. 22-7006) and seeks to appeal the district court’s text order

        denying as moot his motion for request of documents to aid in preparing a 28 U.S.C. § 2255

        motion (No. 22-7185). Armstrong pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute at

        least 280 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846; two

        counts of possession with intent to distribute at least 28 grams of cocaine base, in violation

        of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B); and one count of possession of a firearm by a

        convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). * The district court

        sentenced Armstrong to a total of 240 months’ imprisonment. Armstrong previously

        appealed his sentence, and this court dismissed the appeal. United States v. Armstrong,

        No. 21-4415 (4th Cir. Mar. 29, 2022) (unpublished order). Armstrong now notes a second

        appeal of the criminal judgment. Because this court dismissed Armstrong’s prior appeal,

        we dismiss the second appeal as duplicative.

               As to the district court’s text order denying as moot Armstrong’s motion for request

        of documents, this court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

        and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

               *
                 Section 924(a)(2) was amended and no longer provides the penalty for § 922(g)
        convictions; the new penalty provision in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8) sets forth a statutory
        maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for a § 922(g) offense. See Bipartisan Safer
        Communities Act, Pub. L. No. 117-159, § 12004(c), 136 Stat. 1313, 1329 (2022). The 15-
        year statutory maximum does not apply in this case, however, because Armstrong’s offense
        was committed before the June 25, 2022, amendment to the statute.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7006      Doc: 7         Filed: 04/28/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Armstrong

        seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order,

        and Armstrong’s § 2255 motion remains pending in the district court.

               Accordingly, we dismiss appeal No. 22-7185 for lack of jurisdiction and dismiss

        appeal No. 22-7006 as duplicative. 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

                                                     4