Opinion
22-6964
11-29-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY K. CLINTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Gregory K. Clinton, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: November 22, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:17-cr-00005-GMG-RWT-1)
Gregory K. Clinton, Appellant Pro Se.
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Gregory K. Clinton appeals the district court's August 9, 2022, order denying, pursuant to a prior prefiling injunction, his "Motion to Correct Disposition Text" and "Motion to Dismiss Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and Release from Custody." On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Clinton'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 judgment. We deny Clinton's motion for appointment of counsel. 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
We reject Clinton's conclusory and unsupported allegations of judicial bias. See Akins v. Knight, 863 F.3d 1084, 1087-88 (8th Cir. 2017) (holding that plaintiff's judicial complaint did not require presiding judge's recusal); Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011) ("[J]udicial rulings and opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion." (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Cherry, 330 F.3d 658, 665 (4th Cir. 2003) (explaining that "unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation" is insufficient to support partiality claim (internal quotation marks omitted)).