Court Opinion

ID: 9896265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:00:58.236928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:32.232935
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7229      Doc: 13         Filed: 11/08/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7229

        JAMES BENJAMIN CHARLES,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        EDDIE M. BUFFALOE, JR., Secretary, North Carolina Department of Public
        Safety,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-00196-MR)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 8, 2023

        Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        James Benjamin Charles, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7229       Doc: 13          Filed: 11/08/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               James Benjamin Charles seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

        his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. “[W]e have an independent obligation to verify the existence

        of appellate jurisdiction” and may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders and certain

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

        (internal quotation marks omitted); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292. “Ordinarily, a district

        court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter, 803 F.3d at

        696 (internal quotation marks omitted). “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 order.” Id.

               Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the

        claims raised in Charles’ § 2254 petition. Specifically, the court did not address whether

        trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to show to the jury allegedly

        exculpatory statements in letters written by Wendy Barnhill and by failing to object to the

        introduction at trial of photographs of Charles in a prison uniform; whether appellate

        counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise on direct appeal ineffective

        assistance of trial counsel claims; and whether Charles’ due process right to a fair trial was

        violated by the prosecution’s allegedly prejudicial remarks during closing arguments and

        by Charles’ pretrial conditions of confinement. These claims were presented in Charles’

        prior state motion for appropriate relief (MAR), and that MAR was attached to, and

        referenced in, the letter construed by the district court as Charles’ § 2254 petition.

        Although Charles’ petition was not a model of clarity, we nevertheless conclude that the

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7229      Doc: 13         Filed: 11/08/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        claims raised in Charles’ MAR were properly incorporated as part of his § 2254 petition

        for the district court’s consideration. See generally Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94

        (2007) (requiring employment of liberal construction when evaluating pro se filings).

               Because the district court did not address all of Charles’ claims in his § 2254

        petition, we conclude that the order he seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an

        appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack

        of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved issues.

        See Porter, 803 F.3d at 699. 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

                                                     3