US v. Jeremy Doe, No. 21-6132 (4th Cir. 2021)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-6132 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEREMY ALEXANDER DOE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00072-BO-1) Submitted: April 22, 2021 Decided: April 27, 2021 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeremy Alexander Doe, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeremy Alexander Doe appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Doe’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See 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.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. * 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 To the extent Doe seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, his appeal is untimely. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”). To the extent Doe seeks to appeal his criminal judgment, his notice of appeal is duplicative of a prior appeal of the same judgment. United States v. Doe, 328 F. App’x 850 (4th Cir. 2009) (No. 08-5024). * 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.