Court Opinion

ID: 9882013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:00:31.342682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:39.117764
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6021      Doc: 8        Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6021

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RICHARD ALLEN PATTERSON,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:17-cr-00114-RAJ-DEM-1)

        Submitted: August 30, 2023                                        Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Richard Allen Patterson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6021       Doc: 8         Filed: 10/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Richard Allen Patterson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to

        dismiss his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

        §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle

        & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). In his motion, Patterson also sought

        the return of certain seized property. The court denied Patterson’s motion, finding that it

        was unable to grant relief on a motion to dismiss when there was no matter currently

        pending before the court.

               On appeal, Patterson argues that the court erred in declining to consider either his

        challenge to his firearm conviction or his request for the return of his seized property. It is

        axiomatic that pro se filings should be liberally construed. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551

        U.S. 89, 94 (2007). “In practice, this liberal construction allows courts to recognize claims

        despite various formal deficiencies, such as incorrect labels or lack of cited legal authority.”

        Wall v. Rasnick, 42 F.4th 214, 218 (4th Cir. 2022); see Castro v. United States, 540 U.S.

        375, 381-82 (2003) (noting that federal courts will sometimes “ignore the legal label that a

        pro se litigant attaches to a motion and recharacterize the motion” for various reasons,

        including   avoiding     “inappropriately    stringent   application    of   formal    labeling

        requirements”). We conclude that, here, the district court erred in failing to liberally

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6021      Doc: 8         Filed: 10/03/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        construe Patterson’s motion and denying the motion solely because Patterson styled it as a

        motion to dismiss. ∗

               Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order to the extent it pertains to

        Patterson’s challenge to his conviction and his request that his property be returned to him

        and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the remainder of the order. We deny

        Patterson’s motion to expedite. 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 PART,
                                                                              VACATED IN PART,
                                                                               AND REMANDED

               ∗
                Because “this Court is a court of review, not of first view,” Fusaro v. Cogan, 930
        F.3d 241, 263-64 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted), we do not address the
        merits of Patterson’s claims.

                                                     3