United States v. Loxly Johnson, 687 F. App'x 267

Appellant Loxly Johnson filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
Johnson raised four ineffective-assistance claims: (1) counsel failed to challenge indictment validity; (2) counsel failed to challenge a warrantless cell-phone search; (3) counsel failed to raise a constructive-amendment claim; and (4) counsel failed to raise certain appellate issues.
The district court denied relief in a one-sentence order, stating only that “counsel was not ineffective in challenging the indictment in this case.”
The district court did not address Johnson’s three other asserted claims.
Johnson appealed the denial and a subsequent motion to reconsider. The appellate court reviewed whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Because the district court had not adjudicated all claims in the § 2255 motion, the appellate court concluded there was no final order and dismissed the appeal, remanding for further district-court consideration of the unresolved claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge indictment validity	Johnson argued counsel failed to adequately challenge the indictment	Government maintained counsel was not ineffective on that point	Court recognized district court did rule on this claim; did not reach merits on appeal
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge a warrantless phone search	Johnson argued counsel should have litigated Fourth Amendment challenge	Government opposed relief	District court did not rule; appellate court found no final decision
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a constructive amendment claim	Johnson argued indictment was constructively amended and counsel failed to object	Government opposed relief	District court did not rule; appellate court dismissed appeal for lack of finality
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to raise issues on appeal	Johnson argued counsel omitted meritorious appellate issues	Government opposed relief	District court did not rule; appellate court remanded those claims to district court

United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (courts have an independent obligation to satisfy themselves of appellate jurisdiction)
Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2015) (appellate jurisdiction exists only over final orders and certain interlocutory/collateral orders)
Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (1945) (definition of a final decision ending litigation on the merits)
Robinson v. Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912 (4th Cir. 1982) (order is not final if it disposes of fewer than all claims or parties)
Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694 (4th Cir. 2015) (lack of district-court adjudication of all issues defeats appellate jurisdiction)