US v. Under Seal, No. 20-6673 (4th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6673 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. UNDER SEAL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:07-cr-00010-D-1) Submitted: November 5, 2020 Decided: December 14, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Under Seal, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s orders denying the motion to seek First Step Act relief under a pseudonym, granting the motion to withdraw the First Step Act motion, and denying the motion to seal docket entry 30 and the First Step Act motion. In the informal brief, Appellant only challenges the denial of the motion to seal docket entry 30. Therefore, Appellant has forfeited appellate review of the other rulings. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); 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.”). Our review of the record on appeal convinces us that the district court should have granted the motion to seal docket entry 30. See United States v. Doe, 962 F.3d 139, 146 (4th Cir. 2020) (providing First Amendment standard); United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 492 (4th Cir. 2018) (providing common law standard). Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the district court’s order denying the motion to seal docket entry 30 and remand with instructions to seal docket entry 30 and all other docket entries dated October 15, 2007. We otherwise affirm both orders, deny Appellant’s sealed motion, and 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 IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.