Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Brown v. United States, 00-6986 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6986 Visitors: 13
Filed: Nov. 15, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee, versus SAMUEL L. BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-170, CA-99-4076-8-13AK) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel L.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee, versus SAMUEL L. BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-170, CA-99-4076-8-13AK) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel L. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Scarlett Anne Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Samuel L. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Brown, Nos. CR-97-170; CA-99-4076-8-13AK (D.S.C. May 3 & June 22, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer