Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
14-7559•United States of America v. Kenyatta Sykes
14-7559Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit21.01.2015
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7559
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENYATTA SYKES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (4:09-cr-00015-F-1)
Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenyatta Sykes, Appellant Pro Se. S. Katherine Burnette, Joshua
Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Stephen
Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Kenyatta Sykes appeals from the district court’s
October 6, 2014 orders denying his letter motions and motions
for reconsideration and for other relief and its October 7, 2014
order adjudicating his motion to amend a prior reconsideration
motion and for other relief. On appeal, we confine our review
to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R.
34(b). Because Sykes’ informal brief does not challenge the
basis for the district court’s dispositions, Sykes has forfeited
appellate review of the court’s orders.* Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s orders. 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 his informal brief, Sykes challenges the district
court’s September 11, 2014 order denying his motion for
reduction of sentence. To the extent Sykes seeks appellate
review of that order, we may not review it because Sykes did not
designate the order as an order for which he sought appellate
review in his notice of appeal. See Jackson v. Lightsey,
___ F.3d ___, No. 13-7291, slip op. at 10-14 (4th Cir. Dec. 18,
2014).
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.