US v. Lance Tew

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed under CJA [999940056-2] Originating case number: 6:14-cr-00133-HMH-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000006257]. Mailed to: Lance Tew. [16-7215]

Appeal: 16-7215

Doc: 9

Filed: 01/19/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7215

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
and
NED L. POLK, SR., Bondsman as to Mary Virginia Merritt;
CRYSTAL
MILLER
GOMEZ,
surety
bondsman
for
Jessica
Hollingsworth,
Parties-in-Interest,
v.
LANCE C. TEW,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:14-cr-00133-HMH-2)

Submitted:

January 17, 2017

Decided:

January 19, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lance C. Tew, Appellant
OFFICE OF THE UNITED

Pro Se. William Jacob Watkins, Jr.,
STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South

Appeal: 16-7215

Doc: 9

Filed: 01/19/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-7215

Doc: 9

Filed: 01/19/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Lance C. Tew appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion

for

a

sentence

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012).

reduction

pursuant

to

18

U.S.C.

On appeal, we confine our review to the

issues raised in the Appellant’s brief.

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

Because Tew’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for
the district court’s disposition, Tew has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order.

See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,

370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004).
Tew’s

motion

to

proceed

under

the

Accordingly, we grant

Criminal

affirm the district court’s judgment.

Justice

Act

and

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

3