United States v. Rasean Barker, 692 F. App'x 724

Rasean Barker, a federal inmate acting pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his armed career criminal designation.
The Government moved to dismiss Barker’s § 2255 motion as untimely.
Barker timely responded to the motion to dismiss (Houston v. Lack) and, in that response, raised an additional claim challenging the statutory maximum sentence for his drug offense.
The district court dismissed Barker’s § 2255 motion as untimely but did not rule on or appear to consider Barker’s timely response or the newly raised sentencing claim.
The Fourth Circuit sua sponte reviewed appellate jurisdiction and concluded the district court had not issued a final decision because it had not adjudicated all potential claims contained in Barker’s response.
The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, denied IFP, and remanded for the district court to consider Barker’s response and any claims therein, expressing no view on their merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the appeal	Barker contends the district court’s dismissal is appealable	Government argues dismissal was final and appealable (timeliness ground)	No jurisdiction: district court had not resolved all claims because Barker raised a new claim in a timely response, so no final order existed

Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694 (4th Cir. 2015) (finality requirement for appellate jurisdiction)
Galustian v. Peter, 591 F.3d 724 (4th Cir. 2010) (motion-to-dismiss practice and right to amend/respond)
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1988) (prisoner mailbox rule for timely filings)
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1949) (standards for collateral and interlocutory appeals)