# Brown v. Angelone

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 17, 2001 · 12 F. App'x 108

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1004139

## Case

- **Full name:** Carlos BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 17, 2001
- **Citations:** 12 F. App'x 108
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Williams, Gregory
- **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/1004139

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6975

CARLOS BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department
of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
(CA-99-837-AM)

Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 17, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlos Brown, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Carlos Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny-

ing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Brown’s motion for

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the rea-

soning of the district court. Brown v. Angelone, No. CA-99-837-AM

(E.D. Va. filed June 12, 2000; entered June 13, 2000). 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/1004139. Public record. Not legal advice.