US v. Brian Grimmond

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:93-cr-70058-GEC-2, 3:15-cv-80851-GEC-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999899071]. Mailed to: B. Grimmond. [15-7571]

Appeal: 15-7571

Doc: 15

Filed: 07/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7571

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRIAN S. GRIMMOND,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (3:93-cr-70058-GEC-2; 3:15-cv-80851-GEC-RSB)

Submitted:

July 18, 2016

Decided:

July 28, 2016

Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrea
Lantz
Harris,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Charlottesville,
Virginia,
for
Appellant.
Ronald
Andrew
Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia;
Jean
Barrett
Hudson,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7571

Doc: 15

Filed: 07/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Brian

S.

Grimmond

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 motion to amend as a
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it on
that basis.

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues

raised in the Appellant’s brief.
v.

Lightsey,

775

F.3d

170,

importance of Rule 34(b)).
does

not

challenge

disposition,

Grimmond

has

177

(4th

Cir.

2014)

(noting

Because Grimmond’s informal brief

the

district court’s order.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson

basis

of

forfeited

the

district

appellate

review

court’s
of

the

See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370

F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
In his informal brief, Grimmond requests that we construe
his notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to
file a second or successive § 2255 motion.

See United States v.

Winestock,

2003).

340

F.3d

200,

208

(4th

Cir.

Because

we

previously granted Grimmond authorization to file a successive
§ 2255 motion, we conclude that it is unnecessary to construe
Grimmond’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application
for authorization.
facts

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 15-7571

Doc: 15

materials

before

Filed: 07/28/2016

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3