Filed: Jan. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7426 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KUNTA KENTA REDD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (7:08-cr-00043-D-1) Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 23, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7426 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KUNTA KENTA REDD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (7:08-cr-00043-D-1) Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 23, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7426
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KUNTA KENTA REDD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (7:08-cr-00043-D-1)
Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 23, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kunta Kenta Redd, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Scott Andrew Lemmon,
Timothy Severo, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kunta Kenta Redd appeals from the district court’s order denying his motions to
reduce his sentence and transfer his case. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues
raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Redd’s informal brief
does not challenge the district court’s disposition, Redd 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 affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny Redd’s motion to appoint
counsel and 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