Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0414-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian S. GRIMMOND, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-7571
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 18, 2016
    Decided: July 28, 2016
    Andrea Lantz Harris, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia; Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottes-ville, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brian S. Grimmond seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 motion to amend as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it on that basis. On appeal, we confíne our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting importance of Rule 34(b)). Because Grimmond’s informal brief does not challenge the basis of the district court’s disposition, Grimmond has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

In his informal brief, Grimmond requests that we construe his notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). Because we previously granted Grimmond authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, we conclude that it is unnecessary to construe Grimmond’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application for authorization. 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.

DISMISSED