You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

United States v. Brown

Citation: 667 F. App'x 427Docket: No. 16-6178

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; August 1, 2016; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Unpublished opinions hold no binding precedent in this circuit. Anthony Brown appeals the district court’s order from February 3, 2016, which denied his motion for relief in his criminal case. After reviewing the record, the court found no reversible error and affirmed the district court’s decision. Additionally, Brown's motion for appointment of counsel was denied. The court opted to dispense with oral argument, determining that the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials, making further argument unnecessary. The decision is affirmed.

Legal Issues Addressed

Denial of Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Application: The appellant's request for appointment of counsel was denied as the court found it unnecessary for the resolution of the appeal.

Reasoning: Additionally, Brown's motion for appointment of counsel was denied.

Dispensing with Oral Argument

Application: The court chose not to hold oral argument, determining that the case's facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the existing record.

Reasoning: The court opted to dispense with oral argument, determining that the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials, making further argument unnecessary.

Non-Binding Nature of Unpublished Opinions

Application: The court clarified that unpublished opinions do not serve as binding precedent within the circuit.

Reasoning: Unpublished opinions hold no binding precedent in this circuit.

Standard of Review for Reversible Error

Application: The court evaluated the district court's decision for reversible error and found none, affirming the decision.

Reasoning: After reviewing the record, the court found no reversible error and affirmed the district court’s decision.