United States v. Lial McKoy , 597 F. App'x 175 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-6280
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    LIAL DONNELL MCKOY, a/k/a Goo, a/k/a Lial Darnell Othetlo
    McKoy,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.     Louise W. Flanagan,
    District Judge. (5:09-cr-00259-FL-3; 5:12-cv-00548-FL)
    Submitted:   March 12, 2015                 Decided:   March 16, 2015
    Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lial Donnell McKoy, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Lial       Donnell    McKoy        appeals      the     district         court’s    order
    dismissing his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2012) motion as untimely and as
    barred by the appellate waiver provision in his plea agreement.
    The district court granted a certificate of appealability as to
    its findings of timeliness and waiver.                             We held McKoy’s appeal
    in abeyance pending decision in Whiteside v. United States, 
    775 F.3d 180
        (4th    Cir.    2014)    (en       banc).        For    the    reasons    that
    follow, we affirm.
    We        confine    our     review       to    the     issues      raised     in    the
    Appellant’s brief.                See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).                   Because McKoy’s
    informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
    court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the
    court’s order. *            Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
    judgment.          We deny McKoy’s motion for appointment of counsel.
    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
    *
    In any event, our decision in Whiteside confirms the
    correctness of the district court’s timeliness determination.
    See Whiteside, 775 F.3d at 183-87.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-6280

Citation Numbers: 597 F. App'x 175

Filed Date: 3/16/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023