UNITED STATES v. COURTNEY, 19-6338. (2019)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20190719089
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 19, 2019
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Samuel Lee Courtney appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motion as successive. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Courtney's informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, Courtney has forfeited appellate review of the court's order. See Jackson v.
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Samuel Lee Courtney appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2012) motion as successive. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Courtney's informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, Courtney has forfeited appellate review of the court's order. See Jackson v. L..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Samuel Lee Courtney appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Courtney's informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, Courtney has forfeited appellate review of the court's order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ("The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief."). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment and deny Courtney's motions for a transcript at the Government's expense and to appoint counsel. We also deny as unnecessary a certificate of appealability. See Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009).
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.
Source: Leagle
