Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Brown, 98-7053 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7053 Visitors: 19
Filed: Oct. 21, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7053 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-62-P, CA-97-193-3-P) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7053 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-62-P, CA-97-193-3-P) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Frank DeArmon Whitney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Leroy Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s orders deny- ing relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), and denying his motion for a certificate of ap- pealability. We dismiss the appeal from the denial of § 2255 relief for lack of jurisdiction. Brown filed the notice of appeal outside the sixty-day appeal period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), and he failed to obtain an extension of the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or (6). With regard to the denial of the motion for a certificate of appealability, we have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Brown, Nos. CR-92-62-P; CA-97-193-3-P (W.D.N.C. June 22, 1998). 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. 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