Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    United States v. Rodney Brown, 60 F.3d 825, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rodney Brown appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its June 13, 1994 order denying Brown's § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit found that oral arguments would not aid in the decision and was not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    United States v. Rodney Brown, 60 F.3d 825, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views1 page
    Rodney Brown appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its June 13, 1994 order denying Brown's § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit found that oral arguments would not aid in the decision and was not necessary.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-07-10 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 60 F.3d 825 Docket: 94-6684

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Rodney Brown appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its June 13, 1994 order denying Brown's § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit found that oral arguments would not aid in the decision and was not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views1 page

    United States v. Rodney Brown, 60 F.3d 825, 4th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rodney Brown appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its June 13, 1994 order denying Brown's § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit found that oral arguments would not aid in the decision and was not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 1

    60 F.

    3d 825
    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished
    dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law
    of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the
    Fourth Circuit.

    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee,


    v.
    Rodney BROWN, Defendant--Appellant.
    No. 94-6684.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: April 25, 1995.
    Decided: July 10, 1995.

    Rodney Brown, appellant pro se. Robert William Jaspen, OFFICE OF


    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, VA, for appellee.
    E.D.Va.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. Sec.
    2255 (1988) motion. 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-90-113-R (E.D. Va. June
    13, 1994). 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.

    You might also like