Filed: Sep. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7903 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTONIO THOMAS GOODE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:08-cr-01253-TLW-1; 4:12-cv-02326-TLW) Submitted: August 13, 2015 Decided: September 21, 2015 Before KING, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7903 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTONIO THOMAS GOODE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:08-cr-01253-TLW-1; 4:12-cv-02326-TLW) Submitted: August 13, 2015 Decided: September 21, 2015 Before KING, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anto..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7903
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO THOMAS GOODE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:08-cr-01253-TLW-1; 4:12-cv-02326-TLW)
Submitted: August 13, 2015 Decided: September 21, 2015
Before KING, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Thomas Goode, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina;
Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Thomas Goode appeals the district court’s order
denying the second post-judgment motion Goode filed in his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) proceeding. On appeal, we confine our
review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Because Goode’s informal brief does not
challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Goode
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