Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Lawrence Edward Brown, Jr., 90-6755 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 90-6755 Visitors: 19
Filed: Jun. 18, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 907 F.2d 1140 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence Edward BROWN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. No. 90-6755. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted June 4, 1990. Decided June 18, 1990.
More

907 F.2d 1140
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Lawrence Edward BROWN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 90-6755.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 4, 1990.
Decided June 18, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR Nos. 87-112-G, 87-113, 87-114, 87-111; C/A No. 89-520-G)

Lawrence Edward Brown, Jr., appellant pro se.

Paul Alexander Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, N.C., for appellee.

M.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and CHAPMAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Lawrence Edward Brown, Jr. appeals from the district court's order refusing relief under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Brown, CR Nos. 87-112-G, 87-113-G, 87-114-G, 87-111-G; C/A No. 89-520-G (M.D.N.C. Dec. 8, 1989). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

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