Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10645553
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Charvez Brooks
No. 10645553 · Decided July 30, 2025
No. 10645553·Fourth Circuit · 2025·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided
July 30, 2025
Citation
No. 10645553
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 24-4457 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-4457
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHARVEZ BROOKS, a/k/a Vito,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cr-00034-ELH-1)
Submitted: May 27, 2025 Decided: July 30, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Meghan Skelton, SKELTONLAW, LLC, Cabin John, Maryland, for
Appellant. Kelly O. Hayes, United States Attorney, Jason D. Medinger, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-4457 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/30/2025 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Charvez Brooks appeals from his 20-month sentence following conviction for being
a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He raises two
arguments on appeal: (1) the district court erroneously applied the doctrine of judicial
estoppel to bar him from asserting a violation of his rights under the Speedy Trial Act; and
(2) the district court erroneously applied various Speedy Trial Act exclusions to
alternatively conclude that Brooks’ statutory Speedy Trial rights were not violated.
We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for substantially the same reasons provided by the district court. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
Plain English Summary
USCA4 Appeal: 24-4457 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No.
Key Points
01USCA4 Appeal: 24-4457 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No.
02(1:20-cr-00034-ELH-1) Submitted: May 27, 2025 Decided: July 30, 2025 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.