# United States v. Louis Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · July 23, 2012 · 474 F. App'x 244

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/804983

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis A. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 23, 2012
- **Citations:** 474 F. App'x 244
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Duncan, Agee, Wynn
- **Cited by:** 1 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/804983

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5137

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LOUIS A. BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00057-REP-1)

Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen David Schiller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Louis A. Brown appeals his conviction and 240-month

sentence following his guilty plea, pursuant to a written plea

agreement, to distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). On appeal, Brown’s counsel filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but

questioning whether Brown’s waiver of appellate rights was valid

and enforceable. Brown filed a pro se supplemental brief in

which he argued that trial counsel was ineffective and that the

district court erred by sentencing him as a career offender,

enhancing his offense level for obstruction of justice, and

denying him a downward adjustment for acceptance of

responsibility. Finding no error, we affirm.

The sole issue counsel raised in the Anders brief is

whether Brown’s waiver of appellate rights is valid and

enforceable. However, we decline to sua sponte enforce the

waiver because the Government has not sought to do so. See

United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005)

(citing United States v. Brock, 211 F.3d 88, 90 n.1 (4th Cir.

2000)). After considering Brown’s pro se claims that relate to

alleged errors by the district court and reviewing the record in

this case in accordance with Anders, we have found no

meritorious issues for appeal. We decline to consider Brown’s

2
ineffective assistance of counsel claims in this appeal. See

United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 359 (4th Cir. 2012)

(proceeding standard).

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Brown, in writing, of

his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for

further review. If Brown requests that a petition be filed, but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Brown. 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.

AFFIRMED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/804983. Public record. Not legal advice.