US v. Larry Williams, No. 20-7391 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-7391 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LARRY SINCLAIR WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:92-cr-00083-LO-1) Submitted: December 22, 2020 Decided: December 29, 2020 Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Sinclair Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Sinclair Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of the claims raised in the motion. Id. at 696-97. Specifically, the court failed to address Williams’ challenge to his Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), sentencing enhancement. We therefore conclude that the order Williams 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 claim. 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 2

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.