Filed: Aug. 20, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6258 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH NATHANIEL BROWN, JR., a/k/a Joe Jr., Defendant - Appellant. 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: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6258 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH NATHANIEL BROWN, JR., a/k/a Joe Jr., Defendant - Appellant. 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: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6258 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH NATHANIEL BROWN, JR., a/k/a Joe Jr., Defendant - Appellant. 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: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Nathaniel Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joan Elizabeth Evans, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to compel the prosecutor in his criminal case to produce certain documents. 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. Jan. 23, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
