# Roger Smith v. R. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 14, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10823567

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 14, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10823567

## Opinion text

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10823567. Public record. Not legal advice.