# United States v. Jermaine Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 22, 2015

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3164857

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 22, 2015
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/3164857

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7223

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERMAINE BROWN, a/k/a Jeezy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00063-RBS-TEM-10; 4:13-cv-00041-
RBS)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermaine Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy Richard Murphy,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine Elizabeth
Wolfe, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News,
Virginia; Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Jermaine Brown appeals from the district court’s orders

construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it on

that basis, and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. 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, Nos. 4:09-cr-00063-RBS-TEM-10;

4:13-cv-00041-RBS (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 2015; June 8, 2015). 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/3164857. Public record. Not legal advice.