UNITED STATES v. MITCHELL (2021)

Sidney Stephon Mitchell appeals the district court's order denying his post-judgment motion in his closed criminal case to waive fees for his presentencing report.^* On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Mitchell'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 order. 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   We previously dismissed his direct appeal for failure to prosecute. See United States v. Mitchell, No. 18-4064 (4th Cir. Mar. 9, 2018) (order dismissing appeal).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.