United States v. Garlin Farris ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7147 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7147
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GARLIN RAYMOND FARRIS, a/k/a G,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:18-cr-00099-RJC-DCK-1)
Submitted: March 16, 2023 Decided: March 21, 2023
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Garlin Raymond Farris, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Margaret Greenough, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7147 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Garlin Raymond Farris appeals the district court’s September 21, 2022, order sua
sponte clarifying that it intended to allow Farris to amend his motion for reconsideration
but not to alter its previous ruling on the merits. Because Farris’ appeal of this order was
timely filed and not otherwise barred, we deny the Government’s motion to dismiss Farris’
appeal of this order. * On appeal, however, we confine our review to the issues raised in
the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Farris’ informal brief does not challenge
the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s
September 21, 2022, 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
order. 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
*
To the extent Farris seeks to challenge the district court’s previous orders and this
court’s prior judgments, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as
untimely and barred by the law of the case doctrine.
2