Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0219-01.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. Lloyd MALLORY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-1855.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 18, 2012.
    Decided: May 8, 2012.
    Lloyd Mallory, Appellant Pro Se. Monika L. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Lloyd Mallory appeals the district court’s garnishment disposition order. In his informal brief, Mallory fails to raise any issue directly pertaining to the garnishment order. In fact, Mallory merely argues that this court should grant a stay of the execution of the garnishment order pending resolution of his direct criminal appeal. The court has denied his motion for stay and issued judgment in his direct criminal appeal; thus, his request is now moot. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999) (issues not raised in opening brief are deemed abandoned). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Mallory, No. 1:11-cv00880-JFM (D. Md. filed July 20 & entered July 21, 2011). We further deny Mallory’s motion for the appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.