Filed: Mar. 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6132 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERNEST MICHAEL BROWN, a/k/a Rock, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-97- 15-MJG, CA-00-2641-MJG) Submitted: March 6, 2001 Decided: March 23, 2001 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6132 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERNEST MICHAEL BROWN, a/k/a Rock, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-97- 15-MJG, CA-00-2641-MJG) Submitted: March 6, 2001 Decided: March 23, 2001 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6132 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERNEST MICHAEL BROWN, a/k/a Rock, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-97- 15-MJG, CA-00-2641-MJG) Submitted: March 6, 2001 Decided: March 23, 2001 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernest Michael Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ernest Michael Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) and the order denying his motion to supplement the § 2255 motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Brown, Nos. CR-97-15- MJG; CA-00-2641-MJG (D. Md. Jan. 5, 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. DISMISSED 2