United States of America v. Charles Henry Smith

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6423
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES HENRY SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cr-00133-WO-1; 1:22-cv-
00357-WO-JLW)
Submitted: March 28, 2024 Decided: April 1, 2024
Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Henry Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Charles Henry Smith appeals the district court’s order accepting in part the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Smith’s motion to correct,
modify, or terminate supervised release. Our review of the record confirms that, to the
extent that Smith sought to challenge the conditions of supervised release imposed in his
criminal judgment and to assert ineffective assistance of counsel, the district court properly
construed Smith’s motion as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and
dismissed it on that basis. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h). Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s order.∗ United States v. Smith, Nos. 1:06-cr-00133-WO-1; 1:22-
cv-00357-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C. Apr. 19, 2023). 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
∗ On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Smith’s informal brief does not challenge the portion of the district court’s
order construing his motion as a request for termination or modification of supervised
release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3582, 3583, and denying that request. Therefore, he has
forfeited appellate review of that portion of the district 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.”).

-- 2 of 2 --