# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 5, 2006 · 198 F. App'x 310

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1020439

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mike Anthony BROWN, A/K/A Michael Anthony Brown, Defendant—Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 5, 2006
- **Citations:** 198 F. App'x 310
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Michael, Motz, 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/1020439

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-5197

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MIKE ANTHONY BROWN, a/k/a Michael Anthony
Brown,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-04-93)

Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 5, 2006

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claire J. Rauscher, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA,
INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F.
Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E.
Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Mike Anthony Brown pled guilty to conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute at least fifty grams of a mixture or

substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000). The district court

sentenced Brown to 210 months’ imprisonment, five years of

supervised release, and ordered payment of a $100 statutory

assessment. Brown has appealed, challenging the district court’s

denial of his motion for new counsel. We find no abuse of the

district court’s discretion. See United States v. Gallop, 838 F.2d

105, 108 (4th Cir. 1988). The district court conducted an adequate

inquiry into Brown’s complaint and properly determined that: (1)

counsel was diligent in his efforts to represent Brown; (2) Brown’s

motion for substitute counsel was not timely filed; (3) there was

not a total lack of communication between Brown and his attorney;

(4) Brown’s own behavior created the conflict that was present; and

(5) Brown put forth no valid reason why new counsel should be

appointed. Id.

Accordingly, we affirm Brown’s conviction and sentence.

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/1020439. Public record. Not legal advice.