# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 30, 2008

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1025771

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 30, 2008
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/1025771

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6277

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY LEON BROWN, a/k/a Amp,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:98-cr-00120-H-1)

Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 30, 2008

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Leon Brown, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Anthony Leon Brown appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for reconsideration of its order refusing to

compel specific performance of the Government’s Fed. R. Crim. P.

35(b) motion.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See United States v. Brown, No. 5:98-cr-00120-H-1

(E.D.N.C. filed Jan. 21, 2008; entered Jan. 23, 2008). 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

*
Because Brown’s motion for reconsideration was filed December
5, 2007, see Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988), more than
ten days after entry of the underlying order, only the district
court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration is before the
court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(c); Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(4)(A), 6(a).

- 2 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1025771. Public record. Not legal advice.