Opinion
No. 19-7373
03-03-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARLOS DEMOND ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant.
Carlos Demond Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:03-cr-00616-HMH-1) Before MOTZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlos Demond Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Carlos Demond Robinson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) (2018) and the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018). "Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties." Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the claims Robinson raised in his motion for sentence reduction. Robinson requested that the district court reduce his sentences for trafficking in cocaine base, pursuant to Section 404 of the First Step Act, and vacate his § 924(c) convictions, in light of Section 403's amendments to that statute. The district court denied Robinson's request in part, finding that Section 403 of the First Step Act is non-retroactive and therefore affords Robinson no relief regarding his § 924(c) convictions. The district court, however, did not address Robinson's request for relief under Section 404 of the First Step Act. Accordingly, we conclude that the order Robinson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claim. 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