Case ID: f-appx_443/html/0826-01.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. Dave Andrae TAYLOR, a/k/a Indian, a/k/a Nicholas, a/k/a Spike, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-6629.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 18, 2011.
    Decided: Aug. 23, 2011.
    Dave Andrae Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Arlen Jagels, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dave Andrae Taylor challenges the district court’s orders rejecting his efforts to revisit an earlier order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Because the district court lacked the authority to revisit its earlier § 3582 order, we affirm. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 & n. (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 3530, 177 L.Ed.2d 1110 (2010). 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. 
      
       Taylor also noted an appeal from the district court’s order denying his motion for recusal. By failing to challenge this order in his informal brief, Taylor has forfeited review of this order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”).