Case ID: f-appx_475/html/0790-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Anthony BOYD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-352-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 17, 2012.
    
      Anthony Boyd, pro se, Bruceton Mills, WV.
    Janis M. Echenberg, Jessica Ortiz, Andrew L. Fish, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney, Southern District of New York, New York, N.Y., for Appellee.
    PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, and MARK R. KRAVITZ, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Mark R. Kravitz, of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Anthony Boyd, pro se, appeals from the post-judgment order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Rakoff, J.) denying his motion for DNA testing. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the- case.

Boyd has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s denial of his request for DNA testing under 18 U.S.C. § 3600 by failing to raise the issue in his appellate brief. See United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158, 170 (2d Cir.2002) (‘“Ordinarily, failure to include an argument in the appéllate brief waives the argument on appeal.’ ”) (quoting United States v. Zichettello, 208 F.3d 72, 121 (2d Cir.2000)). Instead, Boyd seeks to raise a claim under 42 U.S.'C. § 14132(b)(3). Regardless of whether this section creates a private right of action, an issue we need not reach, Boyd has waived any challenge to the district court’s decision by abandoning the § 14132 claim he raised below. This alone provides a sufficient basis for affirming the district court. Cf. Nokia Corp. v. Uzan, 425 F.3d 1005, 1008 (2d Cir.2005) (granting motion to dismiss the appeal where the appellants’ arguments had been waived).

In the district court, Boyd sought, under § 14132, evidence that his DNA profile had been entered into a searchable database. By contrast, on appeal, Boyd seeks information about the DNA profile created from the forensic evidence recovered from the crime scenes in this case. We decline to consider this new claim. See United States v. Lauersen, 648 F.3d 115, 115-16 (2d Cir.2011) (finding that, generally, the Court does not consider claims raised for the first time on appeal) (per curiam). And, find that by requesting different relief under § 14132(b), Boyd has abandoned the claim asserted in the district court, see Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593, 596 n. 3 (2d Cir.2000) (“When a litigant — including a pro se litigant — raises an issue before the district court but does not raise it on appeal, the issue is abandoned.”).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.