Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Brown, 03-4820 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-4820 Visitors: 31
Filed: May 11, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Vacated by Supreme Court, January 24, 2005 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4820 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY EARL BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-01-958) Submitted: April 28, 2004 Decided: May 11, 2004 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Af
More
Vacated by Supreme Court, January 24, 2005 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4820 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY EARL BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-01-958) Submitted: April 28, 2004 Decided: May 11, 2004 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Earl Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Timothy Earl Brown appeals the district court’s order declining to grant a downward sentencing departure, following this Court’s limited remand. The sole contention Brown pursues on appeal is that he was entitled to a new sentencing hearing upon remand so that he could be present during resentencing and be given an opportunity to allocute. We conclude that a new sentencing hearing was unnecessary to decide the issue on remand. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order upon remand. 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 -
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