Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Timothy Donahue, 19-6736 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-6736 Visitors: 16
Filed: Sep. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6736 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIMOTHY JAMES DONAHUE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cr-00013-MOC-DCK-3; 3:16-cv- 00558-MOC) Submitted: September 24, 2019 Decided: September 27, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismis
More
                                     UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 19-6736


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

TIMOTHY JAMES DONAHUE,

                     Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cr-00013-MOC-DCK-3; 3:16-cv-
00558-MOC)


Submitted: September 24, 2019                               Decided: September 27, 2019


Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Timothy James Donahue, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      Timothy James Donahue seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the

Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Donahue’s informal brief does not

challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Donahue has forfeited appellate

review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 
775 F.3d 170
, 177 (4th Cir. 2014).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

                                                                             DISMISSED




                                            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