Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Brown v. Director Dept Corr, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Ronald Jeffrey Brown III sought to appeal the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied Brown's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying habeas corpus relief. The Fourth Circuit also denied Brown's request for oral argument, finding the case adequately presented in the existing court documents.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-08-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-6091

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ronald Jeffrey Brown III sought to appeal the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied Brown's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying habeas corpus relief. The Fourth Circuit also denied Brown's request for oral argument, finding the case adequately presented in the existing court documents.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views2 pages

    Brown v. Director Dept Corr, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ronald Jeffrey Brown III sought to appeal the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied Brown's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning for denying habeas corpus relief. The Fourth Circuit also denied Brown's request for oral argument, finding the case adequately presented in the existing court documents.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-6091

    RONALD JEFFREY BROWN, III,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
    (CA-01-405-3)

    Submitted:

    July 15, 2002

    Decided:

    August 5, 2002

    Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Gregory Adam Adamski, ADAMSKI & CONTI, Chicago, Illinois, for
    Appellant.
    Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General,
    Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Ronald Jeffrey Brown, III, seeks to appeal the district
    courts

    order

    denying

    relief

    on

    his

    petition

    U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2002).

    filed

    under

    28

    We have reviewed the

    record and the district courts opinion and find no reversible


    error.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

    dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

    See

    Brown v. Director Dept of Corrections, No. CA-01-405-3 (E.D. Va.


    Dec. 13, 2001).

    We deny Browns motion for 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

    You might also like