UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7055

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TROY DEMETRIUS WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (5:11-cr-00795-MBS-1; 5:14- cv-02672-MBS)

Submitted: August 27, 2019 Decided: September 13, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Demetrius Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Troy Demetrius Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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 (1949). “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 raised in Wright’s § 2255 motion. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, the court failed to address Wright’s claim that, under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), his prior South Carolina third degree burglary convictions are no longer predicates under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2012). Accordingly, the order Wright seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of the unresolved claim. 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