US v. Alito Cross, No. 22-6378 (4th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6378 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALITO TIJWAN CROSS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cr-00297-TDS-1) Submitted: July 26, 2022 Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alito Tijwan Cross, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: July 29, 2022 PER CURIAM: Alito Tijwan Cross appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239, and the court’s subsequent order denying his motion to reconsider. In his informal briefs, Cross argues that the district court abused its discretion by finding that his mental health conditions did not amount to an extraordinary and compelling reason for his release. However, Cross fails to dispute the district court’s conclusion that, even if he established extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting him relief. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Cross’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s dispositive finding regarding both his compassionate release motion and his motion to reconsider, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. 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 orders. 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 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.
