Court Opinion

ID: 9392048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 21:00:38.414344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:34.158039
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6405      Doc: 5         Filed: 05/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6405

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        WILLIAM HENRY HORNE, IV,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-cr-00046-D-1)

        Submitted: January 20, 2023                                         Decided: May 2, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        William Henry Horne, IV, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6405      Doc: 5         Filed: 05/02/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               William Henry Horne, IV, appeals the district court’s order denying as frivolous his

        motion for a sentence reduction. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in

        the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Horne’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 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