2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-21-2011

USA v. Lamar Brown

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-2784

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Lamar Brown" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 493.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/493
GLD-273 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2784

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

LAMAR BROWN,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. 02-00083)

District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to

Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

August 18, 2011

Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and COWEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : September 21, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Lamar Brown appeals pro se from an order dismissing his motion pursuant to 

Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944). Because no 
2

substantial question is presented by this appeal, we will summarily affirm the order of the 

District Court.

In 2003, Brown was convicted of unlawful possession of controlled substances 

with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); he was sentenced to life 

imprisonment. He filed an appeal, which was dismissed by this Court at Brown’s 

request. C.A. No. 03-2882.

In 2004, Brown filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2555, 

alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Brown argued that counsel failed to 

adequately support the pretrial suppression motions with facts that would have allegedly 

resulted in the District Court’s granting his request for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. 

Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).1

 1 Brown’s motion to suppress argued that the confidential informant on which the 

officers had relied upon to obtain the search warrant was lying. He requested a Franks

hearing to establish whether the warrant was defective for containing false information. 

The Supreme Court held in Franks that “where the defendant makes a substantial 

preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless 

disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the 

allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth 

Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant’s request.” 438 U.S. at 155-

56.

 After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the District 

Court denied the motion as meritless. This Court granted a certificate of appealability,

and in 2008 affirmed the decision of the District Court. See United States v. Brown, 283 

F. App’x 63 (3d Cir. 2008).
3

In 2009, Brown filed a Rule 60(b) motion, which the District Court dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction.2

Additionally, Brown cannot show “through clear, unequivocal and convincing 

evidence” that there was “(1) an intentional fraud; (2) by an officer of the court; (3) 

which is directed at the court itself; and (4) in fact deceives the court,” to prevail under 

Hazel-Atlas. See Herring v. United States, 424 F.3d 384, 390 (3d Cir. 2005). In 

affirming the District Court’s denial of his § 2255 motion, this Court determined that 

“Brown still could not show that the officers lied intentionally [and] . . . there [was] no 

 In May 2011, Brown filed a “Hazel-Atlas Action” and 

accompanying affidavit, requesting that the District Court reconsider its decision and 

order denying a Franks hearing. The District Court denied the motion, and Brown 

appeals. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Supreme Court has held, in 

civil cases, that “the inherent power [of a federal court] allows [it] to vacate its own 

judgment upon proof that a fraud has been perpetrated upon the court.” Chambers v. 

NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (citing Hazel-Atlas, 322 U.S. at 249-50). 

However, this inherent power has not applied to criminal cases. See United States v. 

Washington, 549 F.3d 905, 912, 917 (3d Cir. 2008) (federal courts do not have inherent 

power “to vacate a judgment procured by fraud in the criminal context”). 

 2 Brown filed an untimely appeal to this Court, which was dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. C.A. No. 10-1871. Brown then filed two motions seeking to reopen the 

time to file an appeal. The District Court denied the motions and we affirmed. C.A. No. 

10-3570.
4

indication whatsoever that the officers conspired with the informant to lie.” 283 F. App’x

at 66. Therefore, the District Court properly denied Brown’s Hazel-Atlas motion.

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order.