“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”
How later courts described this case
- “The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6637 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6637
ROGER LEE SMITH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN R. BROWN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:24-cv-00072-JPB-JPM)
Submitted: March 11, 2025 Decided: March 14, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roger Lee Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6637 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Roger Lee Smith, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he challenged the execution of his sentence,
arguing that the Bureau of Prisons improperly refused to apply time he served on his state
sentence toward his federal sentence. Confining our review to the issues raised in the
informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b); 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.”), we have reviewed the record and discern no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Smith v. Brown, No.
5:24-cv-00072-JPB-JPM (N.D. W. Va. May 9, 2024). 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