Court Opinion

ID: 9411512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 21:01:12.602681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.448874
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6078      Doc: 9        Filed: 07/25/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6078

        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: July 20, 2023                                            Decided: July 25, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Claude Sloan, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6078      Doc: 9         Filed: 07/25/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Claude Sloan appeals the district court’s order summarily denying Sloan’s petition

        for actual innocence and selective prosecution. We have reviewed the record and find no

        reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Sloan,

        No. 2:18-cr-00004-JPJ-1 (W.D. Va. Dec. 12, 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

               *
                  Although the district court did not explain its reasoning for denying Sloan’s
        petition, our review of the record reveals that the petition is properly construed as an
        unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and, thus, was subject to dismissal on
        that basis. See United States v. Caldwell, 7 F.4th 191, 200 n.4 (4th Cir. 2021) (“[W]e may
        affirm on any grounds apparent from the record” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

                                                      2