# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 10, 2009

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1028155

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 10, 2009
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/1028155

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7231

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LINDSEY BROWN, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:95-cr-00049-RBS-1)

Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: March 10, 2009

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lindsey Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Lindsey Brown, Jr., appeals the district court’s

orders: (1) granting Brown’s motion for reduction of sentence,

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006), in which Brown sought a reduction

based on Amendment 706 of the sentencing guidelines, and

resentencing him to 295 months in prison; (2) denying his

§ 3582(c)(2) motion based on Amendment 599 of the guidelines;

and (3) denying his motion for reconsideration. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United

States v. Brown, No. 2:95-cr-00049-RBS-1 (E.D. Va. filed May 14,

2008, entered May 22, 2008; filed May 15, 2008, entered May 22,

2008; entered June 16, 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

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1028155. Public record. Not legal advice.