Opinion

United States v. Brown

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Feb 15, 2001
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7675

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 Dis-

trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis-

trict Judge. (CR-96-108, CA-00-704-3)

Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 styled “Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

the recent Supreme Court decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey.”

Specifically, she claims error in the district court’s construction

of the motion as a successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2000), and its denial of the motion for lack of juris-

diction because Brown failed first to obtain leave of this court to

file a successive § 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memoran-

dum opinion and order and find no reversible error. Because Brown’s

motion seeks to attack the legality of her sentence, the district

court properly construed the motion under § 2255, and also properly

dismissed it under the gatekeeping provisions of the Antiterrorism

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.