US v. Kevin Elrod, No. 22-6178 (4th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6178 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN EARL ELROD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:18-cr-00034-FL-1; 4:20-cv-00156-FL) Submitted: April 26, 2022 Decided: April 29, 2022 Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Earl Elrod, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Earl Elrod appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel and construing his motion for appointment of counsel and motion to amend as unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions and dismissing them on that basis. He also appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Elrod’s informal brief and supplement do 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 judgment. However, we modify the order, United States v. Elrod, No. 4:18-cr-00034-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 1, 2022), to reflect that the motions are dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, Ali v. Hogan, 26 F.4th 587, 600 (4th Cir. 2022) (explaining that “a dismissal for lack of standing—or any other defect in subject matter jurisdiction—must be one without prejudice” (cleaned up)). 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 AS MODIFIED 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.