Filed: Aug. 15, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6688 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KERMIT C. BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-98-47) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 15, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kermit C. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. F
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6688 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KERMIT C. BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-98-47) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 15, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kermit C. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Fe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6688 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KERMIT C. BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-98-47) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 15, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kermit C. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kermit C. Brown appeals from the district court’s orders denying Brown’s motion for transcripts and other documents from his criminal trial and declining to reconsider that order. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Brown, No. CR-98-47 (E.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2001). 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 2
