Anne Catherine Akers v. Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6828
ANNE CATHERINE AKERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 23-7141
ANNE CATHERINE AKERS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Paula Xinis, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00502-PX)
Submitted: June 3, 2024 Decided: June 21, 2024
Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
No. 23-6828, dismissed; No. 23-7141, affirmed, by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anne Catherine Akers, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Anne Catherine Akers, a former state pretrial
detainee, appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition (No. 23-6828) and a subsequent order denying her motion to copy work
(No. 23-7141). We dismiss as moot the appeal in No. 23-6828 and affirm in No. 23-7141.
In Appeal No. 23-6828, Akers appeals the district court’s order dismissing without
prejudice her § 2241 petition, in which she challenged her pretrial detention. Akers was
convicted in Maryland state court during the pendency of this appeal. Because Akers is no
longer a pretrial detainee, her appeal is moot. See, e.g., Jackson v. Clements, 796 F.3d 841,
843 (7th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). We therefore dismiss the appeal in No. 23-6828 for lack
of jurisdiction.1
In Appeal No. 23-7141, Akers appeals the district court’s order denying her motion
to copy work. We confine our review to the issues raised in Akers’ informal brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Because Akers’ informal brief does not challenge the district court’s finding
that Akers failed to show a particularized need for the copy work, she has forfeited
appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir.
2014) (noting court’s review is limited to issues preserved in informal brief); Williams v.
Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004) (issues not raised in brief are
1 We note, however, that Akers may challenge her detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
now that she has been convicted in state court. But any such challenge would be subject
to § 2254’s exhaustion requirements.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
abandoned). Accordingly, we affirm the appeal in No. 23-7141. We further deny Akers’
motion to seal2 and motion to appoint counsel.
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.
No. 23-6828, DISMISSED
No. 23-7141, AFFIRMED
2 To the extent that Akers seeks to seal all or any part of the record in the district
court, Akers’ motion should be filed in the district court. See 4th Cir. R. 25(c)(2).

-- 4 of 4 --