Filed: Jul. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6147 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. GREGORY UZZELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:04-cr-00076-FL-1; 4:12-cv-00185-FL) Submitted: June 30, 2014 Decided: July 17, 2014 Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6147 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. GREGORY UZZELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:04-cr-00076-FL-1; 4:12-cv-00185-FL) Submitted: June 30, 2014 Decided: July 17, 2014 Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cur..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6147
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GREGORY UZZELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (4:04-cr-00076-FL-1; 4:12-cv-00185-FL)
Submitted: June 30, 2014 Decided: July 17, 2014
Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Uzzell, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas B. Murphy, Assistant
United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina; Imelda Jean Pate,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Kinston, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Uzzell appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely and
barred by the appellate waiver in his plea agreement. On
appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Uzzell’s
informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district
court’s disposition of his § 2255 motion, Uzzell has forfeited
appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s judgment. 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.
AFFIRMED
2