UNITED STATES v. DOE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-04-27No. No. 21-6132

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's order denying the compassionate release motion was affirmed because the appellant forfeited appellate review by failing to challenge the basis for the denial in his informal brief.

Jeremy Alexander Doe appealed the district court's rejection of his request for compassionate release under federal law. The appellate court limited its review to the issues that Doe raised in his informal brief filed on appeal. Because Doe's informal brief failed to challenge the reasoning behind the district court's decision to deny relief, he forfeited his right to appellate review of that order. The court found the facts and legal arguments sufficiently presented in the written materials and determined that oral argument was unnecessary.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial without published explanation. The court also noted in a footnote that to the extent Doe attempted to appeal other matters—a separate federal habeas petition and a prior criminal judgment—those appeals were either untimely or duplicative of earlier proceedings.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Forfeiture of appellate review due to inadequate briefing
Scope of Fourth Circuit review under local rules
Compassionate release request under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)
Timeliness and duplication of appeals

Procedural posture

The appellant appealed the district court's denial of his motion for compassionate release to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Jeremy Alexander Doe appeals the district courts order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Does informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district courts disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the courts 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 courts 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

. To the extent Doe seeks to appeal the district courts denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, his appeal is untimely. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”). To the extent Doe seeks to appeal his criminal judgment, his notice of appeal is duplicative of a prior appeal of the same judgment. United States v. Doe, 328 F. Appx 850 (4th Cir. 2009). PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.