United States of America v. Alito Tijwan Cross

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6378
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALITO TIJWAN CROSS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cr-00297-TDS-1)
Submitted: July 26, 2022 Decided: July 29, 2022
Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alito Tijwan Cross, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Alito Tijwan Cross appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First
Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239, and the court’s
subsequent order denying his motion to reconsider. In his informal briefs, Cross argues
that the district court abused its discretion by finding that his mental health conditions did
not amount to an extraordinary and compelling reason for his release. However, Cross
fails to dispute the district court’s conclusion that, even if he established extraordinary and
compelling reasons for release, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting
him relief.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Because Cross’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s
dispositive finding regarding both his compassionate release motion and his motion to
reconsider, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. 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 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

-- 2 of 2 --