# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 25, 2002

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1007288

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 25, 2002
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **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/1007288

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-8080

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM ARTHUR BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-92-270-MU, CA-00-197-3-1-MU)

Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 25, 2002

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Arthur Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

William Arthur Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motions to amend and to reconsider the denial of

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-92-270-MU; CA-

00-197-3-1-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Oct. 31, 2001; entered Nov. 1, 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/1007288. Public record. Not legal advice.