Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Brown, 00-6961 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-6961 Visitors: 40
Filed: Nov. 27, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6961 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHNNY MACK BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-94-27, CA-99-346-7) Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: November 27, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ellen Bowyer, TROU
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6961 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHNNY MACK BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-94-27, CA-99-346-7) Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: November 27, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ellen Bowyer, TROUTMAN SANDERS, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jean Barrett Hudson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Johnny M. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Brown has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Brown, Nos. CR-94-27; CA-99-346-7 (W.D. Va. June 16, 2000). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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