Court Opinion

ID: 9956778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 21:00:38.349662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:55.760379
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6423      Doc: 15         Filed: 04/01/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6423

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        CHARLES HENRY SMITH,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cr-00133-WO-1; 1:22-cv-
        00357-WO-JLW)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                         Decided: April 1, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Charles Henry Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6423      Doc: 15          Filed: 04/01/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Charles Henry Smith appeals the district court’s order accepting in part the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Smith’s motion to correct,

        modify, or terminate supervised release. Our review of the record confirms that, to the

        extent that Smith sought to challenge the conditions of supervised release imposed in his

        criminal judgment and to assert ineffective assistance of counsel, the district court properly

        construed Smith’s motion as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and

        dismissed it on that basis. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h). Accordingly, we

        affirm the district court’s order. ∗ United States v. Smith, Nos. 1:06-cr-00133-WO-1; 1:22-

        cv-00357-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C. Apr. 19, 2023). 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

               ∗
                 On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th
        Cir. R. 34(b). Smith’s informal brief does not challenge the portion of the district court’s
        order construing his motion as a request for termination or modification of supervised
        release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3582, 3583, and denying that request. Therefore, he has
        forfeited appellate review of that portion of the district 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.”).

                                                      2