# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 6, 2009 · 320 F. App'x 168

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1028490

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 6, 2009
- **Citations:** 320 F. App'x 168
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Gregory, Shedd, Duncan
- **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/1028490

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4974

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

GERALD BROWN,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (6:07-cr-01353-HMH-1)

Submitted: March 24, 2009 Decided: April 6, 2009

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Mackenzie, BARRETT & MACKENZIE, LLC, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Gerald Brown was convicted after a jury trial of one

count of being a felon in possession of firearm and ammunition,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and one count of

being a felon in possession of body armor, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 931(a) (2006). The district court sentenced Brown

to 120 months’ imprisonment on the firearm and ammunition count

and to a concurrent term of 36 months’ imprisonment on the body

armor count. Brown’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that this

appeal is wholly frivolous and lacking in any meritorious

issues. Brown was informed of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief, but he has declined to do so.

Although asserting that the appeal is without merit,

counsel questions whether the district court erred by

instructing Brown’s trial counsel to call a witness Brown wished

to call, but trial counsel did not. Without finding that an

error in fact occurred, we conclude that any error was invited

by Brown himself and cannot now form the basis for granting

relief on appeal. See United States v. Herrera, 23 F.3d 74, 75

(4th Cir. 1994). Moreover, our review of the record leads us to

conclude that even in the absence of any invited error, the

district court’s instruction did not amount to interference with

the attorney-client relationship, in violation of the Sixth

2
Amendment. See Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 558 (1977);

United States v. Chavez, 902 F.2d 259, 266 (4th Cir. 1990).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

review. Finding no error, we affirm the district court’s

judgment. This court requires counsel to inform Brown, in

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review. If Brown requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition

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

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that

a copy of the motion was served on Brown. 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

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1028490. Public record. Not legal advice.