USCA4 Appeal: 23-7262 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7262

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SADEQUIN ANDERSON, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:20-cr-00095-FL-1; 4:23-cv-00007- FL)

Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 2, 2025

Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sadequin Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7262 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Sadequin Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying his motion to amend. 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); 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) (citation modified).

Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the claims raised in the motion to amend. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, the district court failed to address Anderson’s claims that the court erred by applying a sentencing enhancement for possession of a stolen firearm; that the Government breached the plea agreement, rendering it invalid; and that the court failed to adequately notify Anderson before imposing an enhanced sentence. We conclude that the order Anderson 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 claims. Id. 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