United States v. Garlin Farris

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 16, 2025
• Docket: 23-7065
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7065 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/16/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GARLIN RAYMOND FARRIS, a/k/a G,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 23-7065

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:18-cr-00099-RJC-DCK-1; 3:22-cv- 00577-RJC)

Submitted: May 22, 2025 Decided: June 16, 2025 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7065 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/16/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Garlin Raymond Farris, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7065 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/16/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Garlin Raymond Farris seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) 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).

A jury convicted Farris of three drug offenses. In his § 2255 motion, Farris

presented a compound claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging that his trial

counsel failed to investigate and to interview Seth Joseph Mays, a potential alternative

suspect, thus depriving Farris of his rights to present a complete defense and to confront

witnesses. The district court addressed part of this claim, finding no evidence that Mays

was willing and available to testify, and holding that Farris had no right to confront a person

who, like Mays, did not testify at trial. But the court did not address whether the alleged

failure to investigate Mays so impaired Farris’s defense that it constituted ineffective

assistance of counsel. * We therefore conclude that the district court did not adjudicate all

of the claims raised in the motion. Porter, 803 F.3d at 696-97.

* To be fair to the district court, Farris’s § 2255 motion was not a model of clarity. “Nonetheless, courts are obligated to liberally construe pro se complaints, however inartfully pleaded.” United States v. Green, 67 F.4th 657, 663 n.4 (4th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). Having done so, we are compelled to conclude that Farris raised an ineffective assistance claim that the district court did not resolve.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7065 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/16/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

Accordingly, we deny Farris’s pending motions, 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