United States of America v. Jose Armando Bran, a/k/a Pantro

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6233
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE ARMANDO BRAN, a/k/a Pantro,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:12-cr-00131-REP-1;
3:23-cv-00639-REP; 3:23-cv-00640-REP; 3:23-cv-00641-REP)
Submitted: June 17, 2026 Decided: July 9, 2026
Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jose Armando Bran, Appellant Pro Se. Jacqueline Romy Bechara, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jose Armando Bran appeals the district court’s order construing his postjudgment
motions as unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions and dismissing them for
lack of jurisdiction.1 On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal
brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Bran’s informal brief does not challenge the district
court’s conclusion that his motions were unauthorized, successive § 2255 motions, Bran
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.”).
Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
(4th Cir. 2003), we construe Bran’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to
file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Bran’s claims
do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore deny
authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.
1 We previously remanded to the district court for a determination of whether Bran
was entitled to a reopening of the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). United
States v. Bran, No. 24-6233, 2025 WL 1098878, at *1 (4th Cir. Apr. 14, 2025). The district
court found that Bran satisfied the requirements for reopening the appeal period. Bran does
not require a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s order. See Bixby v.
Stirling, 90 F.4th 140, 156-57 (4th Cir. 2024); United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400
(4th Cir. 2015).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.2 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 On appeal, Bran has filed four motions requesting a variety of relief. (ECF Nos.
6, 7, 12, 21). We deny each of Bran’s motions and all relief requested therein.

-- 3 of 3 --