United States v. Garlin Farris

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7147 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7147

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GARLIN RAYMOND FARRIS, a/k/a G,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:18-cr-00099-RJC-DCK-1)

Submitted: March 16, 2023 Decided: March 21, 2023

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Garlin Raymond Farris, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Margaret Greenough, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7147 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Garlin Raymond Farris appeals the district court’s September 21, 2022, order sua

sponte clarifying that it intended to allow Farris to amend his motion for reconsideration

but not to alter its previous ruling on the merits. Because Farris’ appeal of this order was

timely filed and not otherwise barred, we deny the Government’s motion to dismiss Farris’

appeal of this order. * On appeal, however, we confine our review to the issues raised in

the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Farris’ informal brief does not challenge

the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s

September 21, 2022, 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

* To the extent Farris seeks to challenge the district court’s previous orders and this court’s prior judgments, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely and barred by the law of the case doctrine.