United States v. Michael Felton

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 24, 2024
• Docket: 24-6217
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6217 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL FOSTER FELTON, a/k/a Mike,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00003-JKB-16)

Submitted: May 21, 2024 Decided: May 24, 2024

Before WYNN and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Foster Felton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6217 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Foster Felton appeals the district court’s April 18, 2019, order denying his

motion for copy work. We confine our review to the issues raised in Felton’s informal

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

court’s finding that Felton failed to show a particularized need for the copy work, he has

forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177

(4th Cir. 2014) (noting court’s review is limited to issues preserved in informal brief);

Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004) (issues not raised in

brief are abandoned). Accordingly, we affirm. ∗ 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

∗ Felton’s notice of appeal was untimely. But we decline to exercise our authority to dismiss the appeal sua sponte.