The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
21-6551•United States of America v. Gabriel Daniel Morrison-Mitchell, a/k/a G
21-6551Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 10, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6551
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GABRIEL DANIEL MORRISON-MITCHELL, a/k/a G,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (4:12-cr-00010-MSD-LRL-2)
Submitted: September 8, 2022 Decided: September 12, 2022
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gabriel Daniel Morrison-Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Gabriel Daniel Morrison-Mitchell appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by
the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. On appeal, we confine
our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
Morrison-Mitchell’s informal brief does 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. We deny Morrison-Mitchell’s request to place his
appeal in abeyance for a district court decision on a subsequently filed motion for
compassionate release as moot. 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.