Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Raymond Brown, JR., 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Raymond N. Brown, Jr. appealed the district court's partial granting of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582. An unpublished opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's decision, which had partially granted Brown's motion for a sentence reduction. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-03-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7670

    Original Title

    United States v. Raymond Brown, Jr., 4th Cir. (2016)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Raymond N. Brown, Jr. appealed the district court's partial granting of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582. An unpublished opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's decision, which had partially granted Brown's motion for a sentence reduction. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Raymond Brown, JR., 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Raymond N. Brown, Jr. appealed the district court's partial granting of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582. An unpublished opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's decision, which had partially granted Brown's motion for a sentence reduction. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 15-7670

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    RAYMOND N. BROWN, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.
    Rebecca Beach Smith,
    Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00063-RBS-TEM-11)

    Submitted:

    March 29, 2016

    Decided:

    March 31, 2016

    Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Raymond N. Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward


    Bradenham, II, Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States
    Attorneys, Amy Elizabeth Cross, Special Assistant United States
    Attorney, Kristine Elizabeth Wolfe, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia; Gurney Wingate Grant, II,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Raymond N. Brown, Jr., appeals the district courts order
    granting

    in

    part

    his

    reduction of sentence.
    reversible error.
    by

    the

    district

    18

    U.S.C.

    3582

    (2012)

    motion

    for

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated


    court.

    United

    States

    v.

    Brown,

    4:09-cr-00063-RBS-TEM-11 (E.D. Va. June 3, 2015).

    No.

    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

    You might also like