Filed: Jan. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7215 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, and NED L. POLK, SR., Bondsman as to Mary Virginia Merritt; CRYSTAL MILLER GOMEZ, surety bondsman for Jessica Hollingsworth, Parties-in-Interest, v. LANCE C. TEW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:14-cr-00133-HMH-2) Submitted: January 17, 2
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7215 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, and NED L. POLK, SR., Bondsman as to Mary Virginia Merritt; CRYSTAL MILLER GOMEZ, surety bondsman for Jessica Hollingsworth, Parties-in-Interest, v. LANCE C. TEW, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:14-cr-00133-HMH-2) Submitted: January 17, 20..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7215
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
and
NED L. POLK, SR., Bondsman as to Mary Virginia Merritt;
CRYSTAL MILLER GOMEZ, surety bondsman for Jessica
Hollingsworth,
Parties-in-Interest,
v.
LANCE C. TEW,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:14-cr-00133-HMH-2)
Submitted: January 17, 2017 Decided: January 19, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lance C. Tew, Appellant Pro Se. William Jacob Watkins, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Lance C. Tew appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012). On appeal, we confine our review to the
issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Because Tew’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for
the district court’s disposition, Tew has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,
370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we grant
Tew’s motion to proceed under the Criminal Justice Act and
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
3