Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Linwood Batts, JR., 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Linwood Batts, Jr.'s motion seeking an extension of time to file a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The district court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, Batts did not challenge the basis for the district court's ruling in his informal brief. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that Batts forfeited appellate review of the order. The appellate court also dispensed with oral argument, finding that the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented such that oral argument was not necessary.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-12-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7385

    Original Title

    United States v. Linwood Batts, Jr., 4th Cir. (2012)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Linwood Batts, Jr.'s motion seeking an extension of time to file a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The district court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, Batts did not challenge the basis for the district court's ruling in his informal brief. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that Batts forfeited appellate review of the order. The appellate court also dispensed with oral argument, finding that the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented such that oral argument was not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views2 pages

    United States v. Linwood Batts, JR., 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Linwood Batts, Jr.'s motion seeking an extension of time to file a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. The district court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, Batts did not challenge the basis for the district court's ruling in his informal brief. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that Batts forfeited appellate review of the order. The appellate court also dispensed with oral argument, finding that the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented such that oral argument was not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-7385

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LINWOOD BATTS, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Louise W. Flanagan,
    District Judge. (5:07-cr-00064-FL-1)

    Submitted:

    December 13, 2012

    Decided:

    December 18, 2012

    Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Linwood Batts, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


    Jennifer P. May-Parker,
    Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Linwood Batts, Jr., appeals the district courts order
    denying for lack of jurisdiction his motion seeking an extension
    of time to file a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp.
    2012).

    On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in

    the appellants brief.

    See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

    Because Batts

    informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
    courts disposition, Batts has forfeited appellate review of the
    courts

    order.

    judgment.
    legal

    Accordingly,

    we

    affirm

    the

    district

    courts

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions

    before this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like