United States v. Kevin Elrod ( 2022 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6178
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN EARL ELROD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:18-cr-00034-FL-1; 4:20-cv-00156-FL)
Submitted: April 26, 2022 Decided: April 29, 2022
Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Earl Elrod, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Earl Elrod appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
appointment of counsel and construing his motion for appointment of counsel and motion
to amend as unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions and dismissing them on
that basis. He also appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R.
34(b). Because Elrod’s informal brief and supplement do not challenge the basis for the
district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s 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 judgment. However, we modify the
order, United States v. Elrod, No. 4:18-cr-00034-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 1, 2022), to reflect
that the motions are dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, Ali v. Hogan,
26 F.4th 587, 600 (4th Cir. 2022) (explaining that “a dismissal for lack of standing—or any
other defect in subject matter jurisdiction—must be one without prejudice” (cleaned up)).
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 AS MODIFIED
2