Court Opinion

ID: 9402871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-17 21:00:28.438395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:03.176191
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7010      Doc: 14         Filed: 06/16/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7010

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JOEY DEMETREUS STRADER,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (2:17-cr-00074-RCY-RJK-2)

        Submitted: January 31, 2023                                       Decided: June 16, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Joey Demetreus Strader, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7010       Doc: 14          Filed: 06/16/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Joey Demetreus Strader appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

        compassionate release. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the

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

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

        order. 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 judgment. We deny

        Strader’s motion to appoint counsel and 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