Court Opinion

ID: 9837992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:01:09.91432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.772519
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6342      Doc: 10         Filed: 09/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6342

        HUNTER D. COLLINS,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00294-AWA-DEM)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                   Decided: September 1, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Hunter D. Collins, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6342      Doc: 10         Filed: 09/01/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Hunter D. Collins appeals the district court’s order construing his postjudgment

        motion to dismiss or vacate sentence as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254

        petition and dismissing it on that basis. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues

        raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Collins’ informal brief does

        not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Collins 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. We also deny as unnecessary a certificate of appealability. See Harbison v. Bell,

        556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009). 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