Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Percy James TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-08
Citations: 606 F. App'x 128
Docket Number: No. 15-6237
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Percy James TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 606
Pages: 128–129

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Percy James TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-6237.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 30, 2015.
Decided: July 8, 2015.
Percy James Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER ' CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Percy James Tucker appeals the district court's order denying his Fed.R. Crim.P. 33 motion for a new trial and his motion for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1) (2012). We affirm. •
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the recusal motion because the district court's judicial determinations in Tucker's criminal case, on which Tucker's challenge to the denial is based, do not provide a basis for recusal. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 545, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994); Kolon Indus. Inc. v. E.I. Dumont de Nemours & Co., 748 F.3d 160, 167 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 437, 190 L.Ed.2d 352 (2014); Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011). We also conclude that Tucker has forfeited appellate review of the ground raised in his informal brief challenging the denial of his Rule 33 motion for a new trial because he otherwise failed to address the district court's bases for denying relief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would hot aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
. Tucker also appeals the denial of his motion for release from custody and an amendment to the motion for release from custody, both of which were based on his Rule 33 motion for a new trial.
. We grant Tucker's motion to file the supplemental informal brief he has submitted. To the extent the motion and the supplemental informal brief address issues raised for the first time on appeal, we do not review those issues. See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir.2014).