Summary
holding that "Carachuri claims may not be raised retroactively in collateral proceedings."
Summary of this case from Edgerton v. United StatesOpinion
No. 11-6660
11-01-2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY L. WALKER, Defendant - Appellant.
Gregory L. Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cr-00076-BR-1; 7:10-cv-00176-BR) Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory L. Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Gregory L. Walker appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. Walker raised four claims in the district court but his sole issue on appeal is whether the district court should have retroactively applied the Supreme Court's reasoning in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010), to analyze the validity of his predicate offenses relied upon for his career offender enhancement. We have recently determined that Carachuri claims may not be raised retroactively in collateral proceedings. See United States v. Powell, 691 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we affirm. Because we confine our review on appeal to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), and Walker's informal brief does not challenge the remainder of the district court's disposition, Walker has forfeited appellate review of the other issues decided in the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED