Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Kenyatta Sykes, 14-7559 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-7559 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jan. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7559 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENYATTA SYKES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (4:09-cr-00015-F-1) Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7559 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENYATTA SYKES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (4:09-cr-00015-F-1) Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenyatta Sykes, Appellant Pro Se. S. Katherine Burnette, Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenyatta Sykes appeals from the district court’s October 6, 2014 orders denying his letter motions and motions for reconsideration and for other relief and its October 7, 2014 order adjudicating his motion to amend a prior reconsideration motion and for other relief. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Sykes’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s dispositions, Sykes has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. * Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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 * In his informal brief, Sykes challenges the district court’s September 11, 2014 order denying his motion for reduction of sentence. To the extent Sykes seeks appellate review of that order, we may not review it because Sykes did not designate the order as an order for which he sought appellate review in his notice of appeal. See Jackson v. Lightsey, ___ F.3d ___, No. 13-7291, slip op. at 10-14 (4th Cir. Dec. 18, 2014). 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer