# Waneley Brown v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 6, 2017 · 705 F. App'x 196

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4226251

## Case

- **Full name:** Waneley Wray BROWN, A/K/A Waynely Brown, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 6, 2017
- **Citations:** 705 F. App'x 196
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Agee, Hamilton
- **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/4226251

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6821

WANELEY WRAY BROWN, a/k/a Waynely Brown,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00017-MR)

Submitted: November 16, 2017 Decided: December 6, 2017

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Waneley Wray Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Waneley Wray Brown appeals the district court’s order and judgment denying his

petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Brown v. United

States, No. 1:17-cv-00017-MR (W.D.N.C. June 19, 2017). We grant Brown leave to

proceed in forma pauperis and his motion to supplement his informal brief. 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/4226251. Public record. Not legal advice.