Brown v. USA

Filing 86

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that George Browns latest motion for relief,including all supplemental motions [81, 83, 84] are denied.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Browns motion for ruling 85 is denied as moot.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court will not issue a certificate ofappealability as this motion, like the others, is frivolous.. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 5/4/22. (MRS)

Case: 1:08-cv-00182-CDP Doc. #: 86 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #: 568

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
GEORGE E. BROWN,
Movant,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:08 CV 182 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Movant George Brown’s fifth motion under Rule 60(b) is pending in this
closed civil case brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.1 He continues to seek to
relitigate his 2006 criminal conviction in Case No. 1:05CR178 RLW. In that case
Brown represented himself in a jury trial and was convicted of possession with
intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base. His conviction and
sentence were affirmed on appeal. United States v. Brown, 499 F.3d 817 (8th Cir.
2007). I denied relief in this § 2255 case, ECF 23, 24, and the Court of Appeals
denied a Certificate of Appealability, ECF 32. Additionally, the Court of Appeals
has upheld all my denials of his previous Rule 60(b) motions, either through
summary denials or by denying Certificates of Appealability, and the Supreme
Court has denied all of Brown’s petitions for writs of certiorari. See ECF 33, 36,
49, 50, 53, 68, 76, 80. As I stated in my order denying Brown’s third Rule 60(b)

1

Brown has also filed several “supplements” to the latest Rule 60 motion.

Case: 1:08-cv-00182-CDP Doc. #: 86 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #: 569

motion, ECF 71, “despite all these filings, he has never obtained any postconviction or appellate relief. This is because all his filings are patently frivolous.”
This motion is also frivolous, and I will deny it as well.
In the latest motion, Brown contends that I applied the wrong standard in
denying his request for a Certificate of Appealability when I denied his original §
2255 motion. But he ignores the fact that, as stated above, the Court of Appeals
also considered his request for a certificate of appealability and denied it. He also
argues that he was wrongly denied the right to represent himself in the pretrial
phases of his criminal case. This issue was raised in the § 2255 case and was
rejected on the merits.
It appears that Brown is now out of prison, having completed his sentence in
the original 2006 conviction and the later sentence for revocation of supervised
release in that case. Case No. 1:05CR178 RLW. It appears he has also completed
his sentence in a later conviction for possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine and cocaine base, Case No. 1:15CR63 RLW, and is currently on
supervised release in that case.
I will deny the fifth Rule 60(b) motion as it lacks all merit, and I strongly
recommend that Brown find something else to do with his time besides filing
frivolous motions in this court.
Accordingly,

–2–

Case: 1:08-cv-00182-CDP Doc. #: 86 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #: 570

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that George Brown’s latest motion for relief,
including all “supplemental motions” [81, 83, 84] are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brown’s motion for ruling [85] is
denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability as this motion, like the others, is frivolous.

____________________________________
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 4th day of May, 2022.

–3–