# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · November 7, 1997

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/993380

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 7, 1997
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished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/993380

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6103

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

AUBREY BERNARD BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 96-6621

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus

WILLIE LEE DIXON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-90-
128-MJG, CA-94-27-MJG, CA-94-26-MJG)
Submitted: October 7, 1997 Decided: November 7, 1997

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fred Warren Bennett, CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, Washington,
D.C., for Appellants. Carmina Szunyog Hughes, Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

2
PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Appellants appeal from district

court orders denying their motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.

1997)) and, in No. 96-6621, two motions for reconsideration of that

order. We have reviewed the record, the district court's opinions
and orders, and the report and recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm all of

the orders on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.
Brown, Nos. CR-90-128-MJG, CA-94-27-MJG; United States v. Dixon,

Nos. CR-90-128-MJG, CA-94-26-MJG (D. Md. Nov. 15, 1995; Mar. 11

and Apr. 1, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL
338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). 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/993380. Public record. Not legal advice.