Court Opinion

ID: 9375218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 21:00:30.105895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.907060
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7326      Doc: 8         Filed: 02/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7326

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        CLAUDE SLOAN,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big
        Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00004-JPJ-1)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Claude Sloan, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7326      Doc: 8         Filed: 02/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Claude Sloan appeals the district court’s order denying his tenth 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 Sloan’s informal brief does not challenge

        the district court’s disposition of this motion, 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 order. United States

        v. Sloan, No. 2:18-cr-00004-JPJ-1 (W.D. Va. Nov. 8, 2022). 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 Sloan seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition
        for actual innocence, that order is not properly before us. Sloan noted this appeal before
        the district court entered its order denying that petition, and he did not subsequently note
        an appeal of that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A).

                                                     2