Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    United States v. Brown, 10th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a motion filed by Jerome Glenn Brown under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to challenge his conviction. The district court had denied Brown's motion. The Court of Appeals denies a certificate of appealability and dismisses the appeal, agreeing with the district court that Brown's rights under the Speedy Trial Act were not violated as he was brought to trial within the required 70-day period, and that he was not prejudiced by any alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel due to substantial evidence presented against him at trial.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Brown, 10th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    31 views3 pages
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a motion filed by Jerome Glenn Brown under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to challenge his conviction. The district court had denied Brown's motion. The Court of Appeals denies a certificate of appealability and dismisses the appeal, agreeing with the district court that Brown's rights under the Speedy Trial Act were not violated as he was brought to trial within the required 70-day period, and that he was not prejudiced by any alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel due to substantial evidence presented against him at trial.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-03-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-5221

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a motion filed by Jerome Glenn Brown under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to challenge his conviction. The district court had denied Brown's motion. The Court of Appeals denies a certificate of appealability and dismisses the appeal, agreeing with the district court that Brown's rights under the Speedy Trial Act were not violated as he was brought to trial within the required 70-day period, and that he was not prejudiced by any alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel due to substantial evidence presented against him at trial.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    31 views3 pages

    United States v. Brown, 10th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a motion filed by Jerome Glenn Brown under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to challenge his conviction. The district court had denied Brown's motion. The Court of Appeals denies a certificate of appealability and dismisses the appeal, agreeing with the district court that Brown's rights under the Speedy Trial Act were not violated as he was brought to trial within the required 70-day period, and that he was not prejudiced by any alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel due to substantial evidence presented against him at trial.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    MAR 23 2001

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff-Appellee,

    v.

    JEROME GLENN BROWN,

    No. 00-5221
    (D.C. No. 00-CV-19-B)
    (N.D. Okla.)

    Defendant-Appellant.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before EBEL, KELLY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
    Jerome Glenn Brown appeals the district courts dismissal of his motion
    under 28 U.S.C. 2255. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeal.
    Brown was convicted of bank robbery and possessing a firearm during a
    crime of violence, and was sentenced to a total of 562 months imprisonment.

    After examining appellants brief and the appellate record, this panel has
    determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
    determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.
    34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This
    Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
    the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
    citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be
    cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    *

    (Doc. 65, at 1-2.) On direct appeal, we affirmed on the merits but remanded for
    the district court to correct its order regarding restitution. See United States v.
    Brown, No. 98-5206, 1999 WL 1127628 (10th Cir. Dec. 9, 1999). 1 Brown then
    filed a 2255 motion, challenging his conviction on two new grounds: first, that
    his rights under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161-3162, were violated, and
    second, that his trial counsel was ineffective. (Doc. 91, at 5.)
    The district court denied relief on both issues. (Doc. 105.) As cause for his
    failure to raise the Speedy Trial Act issue on direct appeal, Curley asserted
    ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. (Id. at 4.) The court found, however,
    that there was no violation of the Speedy Trial Act, so counsel was not ineffective
    for failing to raise the issue. (Id. at 7.) Brown was indicted on April 9, 1998, and
    jury selection took place on June 29, 1998. (Doc. 8 (indictment); vol. VII (jury
    selection). Thus, 81 days elapsed between the indictment and the trial. (Doc. 105,
    at 5.) Twelve of these days were excludable from the total because of pending
    defense motions. (Id. at 6.) The court therefore found that Brown had been
    brought to trial within the 70-day limit of the Speedy Trial Act.
    Brown asserted his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object when
    (1) his severed co-defendant was brought into the courtroom for purposes of
    We also denied a motion for mandamus on the Speedy Trial Act issue,
    noting that Brown could raise the issue in his 2255 motion. See In re Brown,
    No. 00-5050 (10th Cir. Apr. 4, 2000) (DME panel) (Doc. 99.).
    1

    -2-

    identification; (2) the co-defendants dye-stained socks were admitted as


    evidence; and (3) the case was transferred to a new judge for trial after the jury
    was sworn in. (Doc. 91 attach., at 11-12.) The district court found that because of
    the substantial evidence presented against Brown at trial, he was not prejudiced
    by any of his counsels actions. (Doc. 105, at 8-9.)
    Unless we issue a certificate of appealability, we lack jurisdiction over this
    appeal. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c). For substantially the reasons stated by the
    district court, we DENY a certificate of appealability and DISMISS this appeal.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT

    David M. Ebel
    Circuit Judge

    -3-

    You might also like