UNITED STATES v. HALL (2020)

Marc Pierre Hall appeals the district court's order denying multiple motions related to his criminal case. On appeal, Hall raises a variety of challenges to his convictions and sentence. We conclude that the district court correctly determined that these claims must be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion after receiving prefiling authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h). Similarly, the district court correctly determined that any claim for damages must be raised, if at all, in a separate civil action. We further conclude that the district court judge did not abuse his discretion in declining to recuse himself. See United States v. Stone, 866 F.3d 219, 229 (4th Cir. 2017) (stating standard).

Because Hill's informal brief does not challenge the remainder of the district court's disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of those portions of the court's order. 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.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We deny Hall's motion for review of additional evidence. 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.