# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 3, 2004 · 96 F. App'x 135

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1013240

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Noah BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 3, 2004
- **Citations:** 96 F. App'x 135
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Luttig, Williams, Shedd
- **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/1013240

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-4866

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JEFFREY NOAH BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CR-01-423)

Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 3, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Jeffrey Noah Brown appeals the district court’s judgment

revoking his supervised release and imposing a prison term of eight

months. Brown’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there were no

meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether the

district court abused its discretion by revoking Brown’s supervised

release. Brown was advised of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief but has declined to do so. We have reviewed the

record on appeal and conclude that the district court did not abuse

its discretion by revoking Brown’s supervised release and imposing

a prison sentence. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642

(4th Cir. 1995) (providing standard of review). In accordance with

the requirements of Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Brown’s supervised release

and his sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his

client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of

the United States for further review. If the client requests that

a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition

would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave

to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

- 3 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1013240. Public record. Not legal advice.