# United States v. Roberto Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 28, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8210747

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 28, 2022
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/8210747

## Opinion text

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8210747. Public record. Not legal advice.