Court Opinion

ID: 9961890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-20 21:00:35.818694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:16.288216
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6431      Doc: 8         Filed: 04/19/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6431

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DANIEL WATLINGTON, a/k/a Gator Slim,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00004-BO-1)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                           Decided: April 19, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Daniel Watlington, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6431         Doc: 8       Filed: 04/19/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Daniel Watlington appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for

        contempt and for early termination of supervised release. Limiting our review to the issues

        raised in Watlington’s informal brief, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible

        error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); 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.”). Watlington challenges the garnishment of a portion of

        his social security check for restitution, arguing that the criminal judgment limits restitution

        payments to $100 per month and that he is not delinquent in making payments. Contrary

        to Watlington’s contentions, the criminal judgment provides that restitution is immediately

        due and does not limit payments to $100 per month. Accordingly, we affirm the district

        court’s order.     United States v. Watlington, No. 5:05-cr-00004-BO-1 (E.D.N.C.

        Apr. 6, 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

                                                       2