# Brown v. Gal

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 26, 2001 · 19 F. App'x 125

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1005443

## Case

- **Full name:** Gerard Valmore BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stephen GAL, Warden of FCI-Estill; United States of America, Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 26, 2001
- **Citations:** 19 F. App'x 125
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Luttig, King, 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/1005443

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6517

GERARD VALMORE BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STEPHEN GAL, Warden of FCI - Estill; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-00-2221-6-20-AK)

Submitted: September 20, 2001 Decided: September 26, 2001

Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerard Valmore Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Gerard Brown appeals from the district court’s order con-

struing his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) as

one filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001), and trans-

ferring the case to the District Court for the Middle District of

North Carolina. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

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

soning of the district court. Brown v. Gal, No. CA-00-2221-6-20-AK

(D.S.C. Dec. 21, 2000). 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

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1005443. Public record. Not legal advice.