United States v. Joseph Nathaniel Brown, Jr., A/K/A Joe Jr. v. Charles David Whaley

74 F.3d 1234, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 39062
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 24, 1996
Docket19-1792
StatusPublished

This text of 74 F.3d 1234 (United States v. Joseph Nathaniel Brown, Jr., A/K/A Joe Jr. v. Charles David Whaley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Joseph Nathaniel Brown, Jr., A/K/A Joe Jr. v. Charles David Whaley, 74 F.3d 1234, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 39062 (4th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

74 F.3d 1234
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Joseph Nathaniel BROWN, Jr., a/k/a Joe Jr., Defendant--Appellant,
v.
Charles David Whaley, Appellee.

No. 95-7560.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 11, 1996.
Decided Jan. 24, 1996.

Joseph Nathaniel Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Charles David Whaley, MORCHOWER, LUXTON & WHALEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his request for monetary sanctions from his attorney if his attorney failed to comply with a court order by a certain date. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Brown, No. CR-93-151 (E.D.Va. Aug. 29, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 F.3d 1234, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 39062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-joseph-nathaniel-brown-jr-aka-joe--ca4-1996.