Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Brown, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Kenneth Brown's motion to appeal the district court's denial of his Section 2255 motion. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error. It also denied Brown's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. Additionally, the appellate court ruled that Brown's Apprendi claim regarding his sentence was not cognizable because the Apprendi rule does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review like Brown's.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-05-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-7124

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Kenneth Brown's motion to appeal the district court's denial of his Section 2255 motion. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error. It also denied Brown's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. Additionally, the appellate court ruled that Brown's Apprendi claim regarding his sentence was not cognizable because the Apprendi rule does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review like Brown's.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views2 pages

    United States v. Brown, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Kenneth Brown's motion to appeal the district court's denial of his Section 2255 motion. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision and found no reversible error. It also denied Brown's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's reasoning. Additionally, the appellate court ruled that Brown's Apprendi claim regarding his sentence was not cognizable because the Apprendi rule does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review like Brown's.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 00-7124

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    KENNETH BROWN, a/k/a Sugar Bear,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.
    G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (CR-97-170, CA-99-3666-8-13)

    Submitted:

    May 17, 2001

    Decided:

    May 22, 2001

    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Robert Gregg Levitt, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant.
    E. Jean
    Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Kenneth Brown seeks to appeal the district courts order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2000).
    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and
    find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

    appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.*

    See United States v. Brown, Nos. CR-97-170; CA-99-

    3666-8-13 (D.S.C. June 8, 2000).

    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

    Brown claims on appeal that his sentence is not proper in


    light of the rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466
    (2000). We recently held in United States v. Sanders,
    F.3d
    , 2001 WL 369719 (4th Cir. Apr. 13, 2001) (No. 00-6281), that
    the new rule announced in Apprendi is not retroactively applicable
    to cases on collateral review. Accordingly, Browns Apprendi claim
    is not cognizable.
    2

    You might also like