United States of America v. Andre Youngblood, a/k/a Michael S. Long, a/k/a Michael Johnson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7658
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANDRE YOUNGBLOOD, a/k/a Michael S. Long, a/k/a Michael Johnson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:15-cr-00308-RMG-1)
Submitted: April 26, 2022 Decided: June 2, 2022
Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Senior Judge Floyd dissents.
Andre Youngblood, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
In December 2020, the district court denied Andre Youngblood’s motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We vacated that judgment and
remanded for further proceedings. United States v. Youngblood, 858 F. App’x 96
(4th Cir. 2021) (No. 20-7836). On remand, the district court denied Youngblood’s motion
again, concluding that he had failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons
for compassionate release and that, in any event, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors counseled
against a sentence reduction. On appeal, Youngblood challenges only the district court’s
analysis of the § 3553(a) factors.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See
4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Youngblood’s informal brief does not challenge the district
court’s conclusion that he failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for
compassionate release, Youngblood has forfeited appellate review of this dispositive
ruling. 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
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 3 --

3
FLOYD, Senior Judge, dissenting:
Upon review of the record and the informal brief, I respectfully dissent and would
vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

-- 3 of 3 --