Court Opinion

ID: 5119051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-18 19:00:34.645697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:22:10.866190
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 21-6466

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

TIMOTHY JEROME WHITFIELD,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (7:16-cr-00010-BR-1)

Submitted: October 14, 2021                                   Decided: October 18, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Jerome Whitfield, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States
Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Timothy Jerome Whitfield appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act

of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. On appeal, we confine

our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because

Whitfield’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition,

he 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 judgment. 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