# United States v. Richard Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · August 25, 2015 · 614 F. App'x 123

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2830430

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Allen BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 25, 2015
- **Citations:** 614 F. App'x 123
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Duncan, Keenan, Per Curiam, Wynn
- **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/2830430

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6957

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICHARD ALLEN BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:09-cr-00117-FL-1)

Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 25, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Allen Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Richard Allen Brown appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012), based upon Amendments 750, 781,

and 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. See United States v.

Thomas, 775 F.3d 982, 982-83 (8th Cir. 2014) (holding that

Amendment 782 reductions in drug offense levels do not apply to

defendants whose offense levels were based on career offender

enhancement rather than on drug Guidelines). Accordingly, we

affirm the district court’s denial of relief, grant Brown’s

request to seal his informal brief, deny his request to seal the

remainder of the record, and deny his motion for appointment of

counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2830430. Public record. Not legal advice.