# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 28, 2001 · 22 F. App'x 324

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1006184

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie David BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 28, 2001
- **Citations:** 22 F. App'x 324
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Luttig, Traxler, 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/1006184

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7236

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIE DAVID BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-93-264-P, CA-01-348-3-V)

Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: December 28, 2001

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie David Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Willie David Brown appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We

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

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

pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Brown, Nos. CR-93-264-P; CA-01-348-3-V

(W.D.N.C. filed July 3, 2001; entered July 9, 2001). We further

deny Brown’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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/1006184. Public record. Not legal advice.