Court Opinion

ID: 9699955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:00:50.069425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:42.852371
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6915      Doc: 24         Filed: 08/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 19-6915

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        WILLIAM FELTON HARRIS, a/k/a Hulk Harris,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:16-cr-00127-BO-1; 7:18-cv-00216-
        BO)

        Submitted: August 10, 2023                                        Decided: August 24, 2023

        Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        William Felton Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
        Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Katharine Paige
        O’Hale, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 19-6915       Doc: 24         Filed: 08/24/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               William Felton Harris appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C.

        § 2255 motion. We previously granted a certificate of appealability on the following claim:

        whether Harris’s guilty plea should be vacated in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.

        Ct. 2191 (2019). Rehaif was decided after the district court’s order, and thus, this claim

        was raised for the first time on appeal. A certificate of appealability was denied as to all

        other claims. We now dismiss Harris’s appeal.

               Absent exceptional circumstances, we do not consider issues raised for the first time

        on appeal. Pornomo v. United States, 814 F.3d 681, 686 (4th Cir. 2016). Harris’s Rehaif

        claim was presented in a conclusory manner with no supporting facts. In addition, he has

        not attempted to show exceptional circumstances. Given his barebones claim and his

        failure to provide this court with any further information or argument, we decline to

        consider this claim for the first time on appeal.

               Accordingly, we dismiss Harris’s appeal. 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.

                                                                                       DISMISSED

                                                      2