794 Fed.Appx. 344 (4th Cir. 2020), 19-7208, United States v. Dunham

Docket Nº:19-7208
Citation:794 Fed.Appx. 344
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tarvish Leviticus DUNHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:Tarvish Leviticus Dunham, Appellant Pro Se. Brandon Scott Flower, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Case Date:February 24, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 344

794 Fed.Appx. 344 (4th Cir. 2020)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Tarvish Leviticus DUNHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-7208

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

February 24, 2020

Submitted: February 20, 2020

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cr-00011-IMK-RWT-1; 1:14-cv-00213-IMK-RWT)

Tarvish Leviticus Dunham, Appellant Pro Se.

Brandon Scott Flower, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tarvish Leviticus Dunham appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion and denying it for lack of jurisdiction.[*] On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Dunham’s informal brief and supplement thereto do 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 judgment. We deny Dunham’s motion for a transcript at Government expense. 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

---------

Notes:

[*] A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 motion. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

---------

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP