Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0114-01.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. Hassan Genell HINES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-6968
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: September 28, 2017
    Decided: October 3, 2017
    Hassan Genell Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Stephen Aubry West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:-

Hassan Genell Hines appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion as moot. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hines’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Hines has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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