Court Opinion

ID: 9381462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 21:01:13.023921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.730792
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7127      Doc: 9        Filed: 03/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7127

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        CHRISTOPHER DONNELL BROWN, a/k/a Stymie, a/k/a Stimey,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:17-cr-00350-JFA-1)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 21, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Christopher Donnell Brown, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant
        United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia,
        South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7127      Doc: 9         Filed: 03/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Christopher Donnell Brown appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion

        to correct a clerical error in his presentence report and denying his motion for

        reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

        we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Brown, No. 3:17-cr-

        00350-JFA-1 (D.S.C. Aug. 2, 2022; Sept. 9, 2022). We dispense with oral argument

        because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

        court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     2