Filed: Mar. 16, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN E. BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-97-687, CA-00-2758-3-19) Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John E. Brown, Appellant Pro Se
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN E. BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-97-687, CA-00-2758-3-19) Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John E. Brown, Appellant Pro Se...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN E. BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-97-687, CA-00-2758-3-19) Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John E. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Claude Jendron, Jr., As- sistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John E. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny- ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the dis- trict court. United States v. Brown, Nos. CR-97-687; CA-00-2758-3- 19 (D.S.C. Oct. 17, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
