United States v. Melvin Wimmer, Jr. ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7640
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MELVIN LEONARD WIMMER, JR., a/k/a Melvin Lee Wimmer, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:18-cr-00296-HMH-1)
Submitted: March 31, 2021 Decided: April 28, 2021
Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Melvin Leonard Wimmer, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Leonard Wimmer, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying Wimmer’s
motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by
the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. The
district court denied Wimmer’s motion after determining that Wimmer failed to establish
extraordinary and compelling reasons to support a sentence modification and, in any event,
that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors counseled against a sentence reduction. In his pro se
informal brief, Wimmer assigns error to the district court’s determination that Wimmer
failed to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence modification.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Because Wimmer’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s
determination that Wimmer was not eligible for a sentence modification under the
§ 3553(a) factors, even if extraordinary and compelling reasons supported a sentence
modification, Wimmer has forfeited appellate review of the court’s dispositive holding.
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 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
2