Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07559/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07559-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenyatta Sykes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7559

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

KENYATTA SYKES, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (4:09-cr-00015-F-1) 

Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kenyatta Sykes, Appellant Pro Se. S. Katherine Burnette, Joshua 

Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Stephen 

Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 14-7559 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Kenyatta Sykes appeals from the district court’s 

October 6, 2014 orders denying his letter motions and motions 

for reconsideration and for other relief and its October 7, 2014 

order adjudicating his motion to amend a prior reconsideration 

motion and for other relief. On appeal, we confine our review 

to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 

34(b). Because Sykes’ informal brief does not challenge the 

basis for the district court’s dispositions, Sykes has forfeited 

appellate review of the court’s orders.* Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s orders. 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

 * In his informal brief, Sykes challenges the district 

court’s September 11, 2014 order denying his motion for 

reduction of sentence. To the extent Sykes seeks appellate 

review of that order, we may not review it because Sykes did not 

designate the order as an order for which he sought appellate 

review in his notice of appeal. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 

___ F.3d ___, No. 13-7291, slip op. at 10-14 (4th Cir. Dec. 18, 

2014). 

Appeal: 14-7559 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 2