US v. Rodney Brown, No. 12-4415 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4415 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RODNEY ANTAWAN BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:11-cr-00218-H-2) Submitted: March 25, 2013 Decided: May 7, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher B. Shella, SHELLA, HARRIS & AUS, PC, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Felice McConnell Corpening, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rodney Antawan Brown was found guilty, after a jury trial, of one count of conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006); one count of armed bank robbery and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d), and 2 (2006); and one count of use and carrying of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence and aiding and abetting, in violation § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) and 2 (2006). Brown to accordance 384 months with v. 18 U.S.C. The district court sentenced imprisonment. Anders of Brown California, 386 now U.S. appeals. 738 In (1967), Brown s attorney has filed a brief certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the substantive reasonableness of Brown s sentence. alleging ineffective assistance evidence, and a Brady * violation. file a brief. Because we find Brown filed a pro se brief of counsel, insufficient The Government has declined to no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm. Counsel for Brown questions whether Brown s sentence was reasonable. We review Brown s sentence for reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 52 (2007). * We begin by reviewing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 2 Gall v. the sentence improper for significant calculation of procedural the Guidelines error, range, including failure to consider sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), sentencing based on clearly erroneous facts, adequately explain the sentence imposed. find a sentence procedurally substantive reasonableness. 325, 328 (4th Cir. or failure Id. at 51. reasonable can to Only if we we consider United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 2009). Here, Brown s within-Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable, United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d 388, 395 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 350 (2011), and we find no procedural or substantive error in its imposition. As supplemental to the brief, challenges we find no raised error. sufficient to support his convictions. in Brown s The pro evidence se was The evidence purportedly withheld by the Government records of cell phone call times is not exculpatory, so there is no Brady violation. In addition, we have held that there is no Brady violation if the defense is aware of the evidence in time to reasonably and effectively use it at trial. Cir. 2009). United States v. Jeffers, 570 F.3d 557, 573 (4th Because Brown admits in his pro se brief that he knew of the phone records prior to trial, he does not allege a cognizable Brady claim. conclusively establish Finally, because the record does not that counsel 3 was ineffective, Brown s claims to that effect may only be raised in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and conclude there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Therefore, we affirm Brown s conviction and sentence. This court requires counsel to inform Brown, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Brown requests that a petition be filed but counsel believes such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Brown. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
