US v. Richard Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999614362-2]; granting/denying Motion to seal [999614362-3] Originating case number: 7:09-cr-00117-FL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999646835]. Mailed to: Richard Brown. [15-6957]

Appeal: 15-6957

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/25/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6957

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD ALLEN BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:09-cr-00117-FL-1)

Submitted:

August 20, 2015

Decided:

August 25, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Allen Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6957

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/25/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Richard
denying

his

Allen

Brown

motion

for

appeals
a

the

sentence

district

court’s

reduction

order

pursuant

to

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012), based upon Amendments 750, 781,
and 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.

We have reviewed the

record

See

and

Thomas,

775

find

no

F.3d

reversible

982,

error.

982-83

(8th

Cir.

United

2014)

States

(holding

v.

that

Amendment 782 reductions in drug offense levels do not apply to
defendants whose offense levels were based on career offender
enhancement rather than on drug Guidelines).
affirm

the

district

court’s

denial

of

Accordingly, we

relief,

grant

Brown’s

request to seal his informal brief, deny his request to seal the
remainder of the record, and deny his motion for appointment of
counsel.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

2