# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 30, 2000

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1001210

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 30, 2000
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1001210

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6043

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES DARNELL BROWN, a/k/a James David Brown,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-96-44, CA-99-315-1)

Submitted: March 23, 2000 Decided: March 30, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Darnell Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

James Darnell Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-

ion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-

ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Brown, Nos. CR-96-44; CA-99-315-1

(E.D.N.C. Dec. 13, 1999).* We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-

terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

*
Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
December 10, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on December 13, 1999. Pursuant to
Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as
the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.
Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1001210. Public record. Not legal advice.