# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 23, 2001 · 6 F. App'x 164

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1003871

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Michael BROWN, A/K/A Rock, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 23, 2001
- **Citations:** 6 F. App'x 164
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Motz, King, Hamilton
- **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/1003871

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6132

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ERNEST MICHAEL BROWN, a/k/a Rock,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-97-
15-MJG, CA-00-2641-MJG)

Submitted: March 6, 2001 Decided: March 23, 2001

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest Michael Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Ernest Michael Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

2000) and the order denying his motion to supplement the § 2255

motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer-

tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See United States v. Brown, Nos. CR-97-15-

MJG; CA-00-2641-MJG (D. Md. Jan. 5, 2001). 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1003871. Public record. Not legal advice.