Filed: Jan. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7560 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, versus JOSEPH NATHANIEL BROWN, JR., a/k/a Joe Jr., Defendant - Appellant, versus CHARLES DAVID WHALEY, Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-93-151) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7560 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, versus JOSEPH NATHANIEL BROWN, JR., a/k/a Joe Jr., Defendant - Appellant, versus CHARLES DAVID WHALEY, Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-93-151) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7560 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, versus JOSEPH NATHANIEL BROWN, JR., a/k/a Joe Jr., Defendant - Appellant, versus CHARLES DAVID WHALEY, Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-93-151) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Nathaniel Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Charles David Whaley, MORCHOWER, LUXTON & WHALEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his request for monetary sanctions from his attorney if his attorney failed to comply with a court order by a certain date. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Brown, No. CR-93-151 (E.D. Va. Aug. 29, 1995). 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 3