United States v. Brown ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7208
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL QUINCY BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR-
97-344-DKC, CA-99-3017-DKC)
Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: December 6, 2000
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Quincy Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Barbara Suzanne Skalla, As-
sistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Quincy Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2000). However, the sole issues Brown raised in his informal brief
relate to the validity of his plea, and the district court’s denial
of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim as it relates to his
career offender status. Accordingly, we have limited our review to
those issues. See Local Rule 34(b). We have reviewed the record
and the district court's opinion relating to the issues Brown
specified in his informal brief, and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court, as
to those issues, and we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See
United States v. Brown, Nos. CR-97-344-DKC; CA-99-3017-DKC (D. Md.
June 16, 2000). To the extent Brown seeks to raise issues not
first presented to the district court for review, we decline to
review those issues. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2