United States v. Dawitt Hall ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6672 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6672
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAWITT RALPH HALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Retired District Judge. (1:16-cr-00010-PTG-1)
Submitted: November 14, 2024 Decided: November 19, 2024
Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dawitt Ralph Hall, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6672 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Dawitt Ralph Hall, a federal prisoner, filed a pro se notice of appeal on or about
June 22, 2024, in his criminal case. Hall’s notice of appeal did not, however, designate the
judgment or order of the district court from which the appeal was taken. See Fed. R. App.
P. 3(c)(1)(B) (requiring notice of appeal to include that information); Wall Guy, Inc. v. Fed.
Deposit Ins. Corp., 95 F.4th 862, 871 (4th Cir. 2024) (explaining that Rule 3(c)(1)(B) is
jurisdictional), cert. denied, No. 24-159, 2024 WL 4427249 (U.S. Oct. 7, 2024). And the
content of the notice of appeal offers no suggestion as to the judgment or order that Hall
seeks to appeal. While Hall states in his informal brief that he seeks to appeal the district
court’s order entered on June 26, 2024, the district court did not enter an order on that date.
In fact, the district court entered its most recent order in Hall’s criminal case on October 16,
2023. *
Because we cannot determine the judgment or order that Hall wishes to appeal, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.
DISMISSED
The district court’s October 16, 2023, order denied Hall’s pro se amended motion
*
for compassionate release. Hall’s informal brief does not mention compassionate release,
and he does not challenge the district court’s reasons for denying his pro se amended
motion for compassionate release. So even if he is attempting to appeal that order, he has
forfeited appellate review of it. 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.”).
2