United States v. Jerome Heath ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7259
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEROME RAMAAL HEATH, a/k/a Ro,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 20-7790
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEROME RAMAAL HEATH, a/k/a Ro,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00035-RGD-RJK-1)
Submitted: January 28, 2021 Decided: February 5, 2021
Before MOTZ, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Ramaal Heath, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Ramaal Heath, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district court’s orders
denying Heath’s second 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, and dismissing without prejudice Heath’s motion for
reconsideration. With respect to the denial of Heath’s second motion for compassionate
release, we have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Heath, No. 2:18-cr-
00035-RGD-RJK-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 12, 2020). As for the dismissal of Heath’s motion for
reconsideration, Heath’s informal briefs do not challenge the basis for the district court’s
dismissal. Heath has thus forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order dismissing
his motion for reconsideration. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); 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 orders. 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
3