# United States v. Anthony Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 6, 2015 · 601 F. App'x 230

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2798977

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 6, 2015
- **Citations:** 601 F. App'x 230
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Gregory, Duncan, Floyd
- **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/2798977

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4517

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:03-cr-00612-TSE-1)

Submitted: February 27, 2015 Decided: May 6, 2015

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Joseph J. McCarthy, DELANEY, MCCARTHY & COLTON, P.C.,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United
States Attorney, Morris R. Parker, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Anthony Brown appeals from the district court’s order

denying his motion to rescind his plea agreement and withdraw

his guilty plea. We vacate the order and remand with directions

to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion.

We conclude that the existing record does not permit us to

properly perform our appellate review function and signals for

an evidentiary hearing so that the district court can make an

informed determination upon a properly developed record. We

have always declined to create a rigid rule that would override

a district court’s “common sense and sound discretion” when

determining whether an evidentiary hearing must be held.

Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526, 530 (4th Cir. 1970)

(considering a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion challenging the

voluntariness of a guilty plea). However, where the

circumstances necessitate an evidentiary hearing to fairly

resolve the issues presented and provide an adequate record for

appellate review, we have required such a hearing. For these

reasons, the district court should hold an evidentiary hearing

in order to develop an adequate record upon which a fully

informed adjudication of Brown’s motion can be conducted and a

proper appellate review of any judgment may be performed. We

express no opinion on the merits of the motion based on the

record before us.

2
Accordingly, the order of the district court is hereby

vacated and remanded with direction to conduct an evidentiary

hearing on Brown’s motion. We deny Brown’s motions to expedite

the appeal as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
WITH INSTRUCTIONS

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2798977. Public record. Not legal advice.