United States of America v. Ashley Kawczynski

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6610
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ASHLEY KAWCZYNSKI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (2:22-cr-00160-1)
Submitted: October 22, 2024 Decided: October 25, 2024
Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ashley Kawczynski, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ashley Kawczynski filed a notice of appeal, suggesting that she intended to appeal
the magistrate judge’s recommendation related to her then-pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion, as well as the district court’s order denying Kawczynski’s motion for a sentence
reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over
final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-
46 (1949). The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is neither a final order nor
an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Haney v. Addison, 175 F.3d 1217, 1219
(10th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we dismiss that portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Turning to the district court’s denial of Kawczynski’s motion for a sentence
reduction, we confine our review on appeal to the issues raised in the informal brief. See
4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Kawczynski’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for
the district court’s disposition, she 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 order. United States v. Kawczynski,
No. 2:22-cr-00160-1 (S.D. W. Va. June 3, 2024). 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.
DISMISSED IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART

-- 2 of 2 --