US v. Percy Tucker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to supplement [999557270-2] Originating case number: 2:09-cr-00182-AWA-DEM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999616583]. Mailed to: Percy Tucker. [15-6237]

Appeal: 15-6237

Doc: 13

Filed: 07/08/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6237

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PERCY JAMES TUCKER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00182-AWA-DEM-1)

Submitted:

June 30, 2015

Decided:

July 8, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Percy James Tucker, Appellant Pro Se.
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Appellee.

Sherrie Scott Capotosto,
Norfolk,
Virginia,
for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6237

Doc: 13

Filed: 07/08/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Percy

James

Tucker

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial 1 and his
motion for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1) (2012).

We

affirm.
We

conclude

that

the

district

court

did

not

abuse

its

discretion by denying the recusal motion because the district
court’s judicial determinations in Tucker’s criminal case, on
which Tucker’s challenge to the denial is based, do not provide
a basis for recusal.

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 545

(1994); Kolon Indus. Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 748
F.3d 160, 167 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 437 (2014);
Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011).

We also

conclude

of

that

Tucker

has

forfeited

appellate

review

the

ground raised in his informal brief challenging the denial of
his Rule 33 motion for a new trial because he otherwise failed
to address the district court’s bases for denying relief.

See

4th Cir. R. 34(b).

1

Tucker also appeals the denial of his motion for release
from custody and an amendment to the motion for release from
custody, both of which were based on his Rule 33 motion for a
new trial.

2

Appeal: 15-6237

Doc: 13

Filed: 07/08/2015

Accordingly, we
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

Pg: 3 of 3

affirm the district court’s order. 2
argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2

We grant Tucker’s motion to file the supplemental informal
brief he has submitted.
To the extent the motion and the
supplemental informal brief address issues raised for the first
time on appeal, we do not review those issues. See In re Under
Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014).

3