P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter, 803 F.3d at 696 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Regardless of the label given a district court 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.” Id. In his initial § 2255 motion, Barker challenged his designation as an armed career criminal. The Government moved to dismiss Barker’s motion as untimely. Barker, a federal inmate acting pro se, timely responded to the Government’s motion to dismiss, see Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) (<HOLDING>), and asserted a new claim regarding the
holding that an noa filed by a pro se prisoner is deemed filed on the date that the prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for mailing holding that pro se prisoners 28 usc  2254 application deemed filed for limitation purposes when deposited with prison officials for mailing holding that prisoners notice of appeal deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court holding that prisoners legal materials are deemed filed on the date they are deposited with prison officials for mailing holding that a pro se prisoners notice of appeal is considered filed upon delivery to prison authorities for mailing to the court