# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 11, 2002

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1007758

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 11, 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- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/1007758

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6496

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WAYNE MARK BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 02-6543

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WAYNE MARK BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CR-98-1126)

Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 11, 2002

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Mark Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Mark Wayne Brown appeals the

district court’s order denying his request for pre-trial, trial,

and sentencing transcripts. Brown claims he should receive free

access to the transcripts because he plans to raise claims of

prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel in

a habeas proceeding filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We find that Brown has not demonstrated an adequate need

for the transcripts by merely providing the type of claims he plans

to present in his habeas motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994).

Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed. 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.

AFFIRMED

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1007758. Public record. Not legal advice.