United States v. Marc Hall ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6900
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARC PIERRE HALL, a/k/a Marc Valeriano, a/k/a Fella,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:95-cr-00005-FDW-1)
Submitted: August 20, 2020 Decided: August 25, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Pierre Hall, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marc Pierre Hall appeals the district court’s order denying multiple motions related
to his criminal case. On appeal, Hall raises a variety of challenges to his convictions and
sentence. We conclude that the district court correctly determined that these claims must
be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion after receiving prefiling authorization from
this court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h). Similarly, the district court correctly
determined that any claim for damages must be raised, if at all, in a separate civil action.
We further conclude that the district court judge did not abuse his discretion in declining
to recuse himself. See United States v. Stone, 866 F.3d 219, 229 (4th Cir. 2017) (stating
standard).
Because Hill’s informal brief does not challenge the remainder of the district court’s
disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of those portions of the court’s order. 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 judgment. We deny
Hall’s motion for review of additional evidence. 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