# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · November 26, 2002 · 51 F. App'x 417

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1009135

## Case

- **Full name:** James Albert BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 26, 2002
- **Citations:** 51 F. App'x 417
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Motz, 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/1009135

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7011

JAMES ALBERT BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-
95-443-3)

Submitted: October 18, 2002 Decided: November 26, 2002

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Albert Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Chastain Wicker,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

James Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his

petition for a writ of quo warranto. We conclude Brown was required

to challenge his conviction and sentence via a 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion, or, if that remedy proved inadequate or ineffective,

by filing a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). Thus,

Brown was not entitled to a writ of quo warranto. Accordingly, we

affirm the district court’s judgment denying Brown’s petition. 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/1009135. Public record. Not legal advice.