Court Opinion

ID: 9397267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 21:00:43.755535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:22.957428
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6009      Doc: 6        Filed: 05/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6009

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JESUS RAMIREZ-BARRERA,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:18-cr-00477-CCE-1)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                             Decided: May 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jesus Ramirez-Barrera, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6009       Doc: 6          Filed: 05/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jesus Ramirez-Barrera appeals the district court’s August 23, 2022, order denying

        his second motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Ramirez-

        Barrera also appeals the district court’s October 18, 2022, order denying his subsequent

        motion for reconsideration of the August 23, 2022, denial and denying his motion to

        appoint counsel. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal

        brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Ramirez-Barrera’s informal brief does not challenge

        the basis for the district court’s dispositions, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s

        orders. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is

        an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues

        preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgments. 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

                                                       2