United States v. Percy Tucker ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6237
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PERCY JAMES TUCKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00182-AWA-DEM-1)
Submitted: June 30, 2015 Decided: July 8, 2015
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Percy James Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Percy James Tucker appeals the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial 1 and his
motion for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1) (2012). We
affirm.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by denying the recusal motion because the district
court’s judicial determinations in Tucker’s criminal case, on
which Tucker’s challenge to the denial is based, do not provide
a basis for recusal. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 545
(1994); Kolon Indus. Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 748
F.3d 160, 167 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 437 (2014);
Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011). We also
conclude that Tucker has forfeited appellate review of the
ground raised in his informal brief challenging the denial of
his Rule 33 motion for a new trial because he otherwise failed
to address the district court’s bases for denying relief. See
4th Cir. R. 34(b).
1 Tucker also appeals the denial of his motion for release
from custody and an amendment to the motion for release from
custody, both of which were based on his Rule 33 motion for a
new trial.
2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 2 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 We grant Tucker’s motion to file the supplemental informal
brief he has submitted. To the extent the motion and the
supplemental informal brief address issues raised for the first
time on appeal, we do not review those issues. See In re Under
Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014).
3