United States v. Brown

D.C. Circuit

United States v. Brown

6 F. App'x 5

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 19, 2001

DocketNo. 01-3009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 F. App'x 5 (United States v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Brown, 6 F. App'x 5 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the memoranda of law and fact filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed February 5, 2001 be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. The findings of the district court regarding appellant’s dangerousness are supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous, and the decision to hold appellant pending trial is therefore sustained. See United States v. Weissberger, 951 F.2d 392, 399 (D.C.Cir.1991). It is thus unnecessary to determine whether the district court’s findings regarding appellant’s risk of flight are supported by a preponderance of the [6]*6evidence. See United States v. Simpkins, 826 F.2d 94, 97 (D.C.Cir.1987).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the memoranda of law and fact filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed February 5, 2001 be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. The findings of the district court regarding appellant’s dangerousness are supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous, and the decision to hold appellant pending trial is therefore sustained. See United States v. Weissberger, 951 F.2d 392, 399 (D.C.Cir.1991). It is thus unnecessary to determine whether the district court’s findings regarding appellant’s risk of flight are supported by a preponderance of the [6]*6evidence. See United States v. Simpkins, 826 F.2d 94, 97 (D.C.Cir.1987).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 F. App'x 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-brown-cadc-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack