# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 16, 2002 · 32 F. App'x 122

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1007244

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kermit C. BROWN, A/K/A Brian MacKey, A/K/A Destruction, A/K/A Bear, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 16, 2002
- **Citations:** 32 F. App'x 122
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Hamilton, King, Niemeyer, Per Curiam
- **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/1007244

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-8079

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KERMIT C. BROWN, a/k/a Brian Mackey, a/k/a
Destruction, a/k/a Bear,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-98-47, CA-01-774-2)

Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: April 16, 2002

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kermit C. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Kermit C. Brown seeks to appeal 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 appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Brown, Nos.

CR-98-47; CA-01-774-2 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 6, 2001, entered Nov. 7,

2001). We dispense with oral argument and deny Brown’s motion for

sentencing transcripts 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/1007244. Public record. Not legal advice.