# John Wayne Brown v. J.D. Netherland, Warden

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · February 26, 1997 · 107 F.3d 865

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/736405

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 26, 1997
- **Citations:** 107 F.3d 865; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7515; 1997 WL 79901
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/736405

## Opinion text

107 F.3d 865
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
John Wayne BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
J.D. NETHERLAND, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 96-7068.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 13, 1997.
Decided Feb. 26, 1997.
John Wayne Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Katherine P. Baldwin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, VA, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
1
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. Brown v. Netherland, No. CA-95-715-AM (E.D.Va. May 22, 1996). We deny Appellant's motions for the appointment of counsel, objecting to the terms of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, for compliance with prior court order, and requesting this court to order the institution where he is incarcerated to follow the procedures stated in this court's prior order.
2
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.
DISMISSED

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/736405. Public record. Not legal advice.