Court Opinion

ID: 9381461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 21:01:12.086219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.700813
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7147      Doc: 14         Filed: 03/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7147

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        GARLIN RAYMOND FARRIS, a/k/a G,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:18-cr-00099-RJC-DCK-1)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 21, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Garlin Raymond Farris, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Margaret Greenough, OFFICE OF
        THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7147         Doc: 14        Filed: 03/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Garlin Raymond Farris appeals the district court’s September 21, 2022, order sua

        sponte clarifying that it intended to allow Farris to amend his motion for reconsideration

        but not to alter its previous ruling on the merits. Because Farris’ appeal of this order was

        timely filed and not otherwise barred, we deny the Government’s motion to dismiss Farris’

        appeal of this order. * On appeal, however, we confine our review to the issues raised in

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

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

        September 21, 2022, 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

        order. 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

               *
                To the extent Farris seeks to challenge the district court’s previous orders and this
        court’s prior judgments, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as
        untimely and barred by the law of the case doctrine.

                                                       2