“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: 22-6165 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/28/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6165
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERTO BROWN, a/k/a AB,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:15-cr-00800-RMG-1)
Submitted: September 19, 2022 Decided: September 28, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DIAZ and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roberto Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6165 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/28/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Roberto Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In his informal brief,
Brown argues that the district court abused its discretion by finding that he had not
established extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release. However, Brown fails to
dispute the district court’s conclusion that, even if he established extraordinary and
compelling reasons for release, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting
him relief.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See
4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Brown’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s
dispositive finding regarding his compassionate release motion, he has forfeited appellate
review of the district 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 order. 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