Filed: Dec. 20, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7223 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JULEEN BROWN, a/k/a Carol Baxter, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-108) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juleen B
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7223 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JULEEN BROWN, a/k/a Carol Baxter, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-108) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juleen Br..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7223
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JULEEN BROWN, a/k/a Carol Baxter,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-96-108)
Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Juleen Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Juleen Brown appeals the district court’s order denying her
motion to modify term of imprisonment and her request to allow her
to resubmit her claim based on Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466
(2000), under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Brown, No.
CR-96-108 (E.D. Va. July 29, 2002). 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
2