US v. Aaron Coppedge, No. 16-6768 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6768 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. AARON COPPEDGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (4:09-cr-00064-F-1; 4:15-cv-00009-F) Submitted: February 15, 2017 Decided: February 17, 2017 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron Coppedge, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Aaron Coppedge seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the denying relief Although Government’s in “[t]he jurisdiction[,] his 28 parties . . motion . U.S.C. . we . for summary § 2255 (2012) . have an have judgment not independent and proceeding. questioned our 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). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as omitted). to all parties.” “Regardless of Id. the (internal label given quotation marks district court a 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.” In cured, his Id. initial, Coppedge unsigned raised § 2255 eight motion, claims which involving he later ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment violations; due process allegedly erroneous sentencing enhancements. amended § 2255 ineffective investigate motion assistance an alibi and of raised trial witness; (2) 2 four violations; Coppedge filed an distinct counsel and for ineffective claims: (1) failing to assistance of trial counsel for giving erroneous plea advice; (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to one sentencing enhancement; and (4) prosecutorial misconduct based on the alleged use of false testimony. Because additional court the claims “never motion].” district raised issued Id. a court in did the final not amended decision rule on § 2255 on the four motion, that [Coppedge’s § 2255 Thus, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and remand to the district court for consideration of Coppedge’s remaining four claims. We express no opinion on the ultimate disposition of the additional claims. the district claims.” court’s Id. “We [also] express no opinion regarding dismissal of [Coppedge’s] other [eight] 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
