Whether the Court of Appeals misapplied the harmless error doctrine announced in United States v. Harchulik, regarding Brown's sentence for drug conspiracy

No question identified. : | HETHER THe COURTOE APPEALS MISAPLTED THE Heamless |eAoce Doct AUNOUNCED TA UWTD Ses ve HaRchuG f EELAMED Bhaowats SENTENCE Fot DRUG Comsesnacy? i | | L. | | | | i | | __ __| | | | | | pe i a , TT_.STATEMaNT OF RELATED CASS lu Hed Stedesv. Brown, etal. Mo. 72/¢6R300A6 U3. Dishict [uct ft ten Dike Urine. Tadgpant cateael i _lUnited States vr Brown. et ale, Alot =WA5 CL), US. Couct of | Appeals or the. Fourth Cecuit. ducdament entered Way 1, 08h \ | | | | | | | | | . | ; ) | Question resented for Review os 2 once e000 00 -se 09a omg) II._[ctatemont of Related (6565s. oa cnerenoesonesneenee th __TT. | alole of ‘ombenls, 9 oa oo tos 906 0.0s9_a oso ooeecenae ti __w_| able of Mths oneness eee ee eer sence meategetY WA | pe: ion for Lit of | Vi Citertion te Opinion Beli rT. ll Sunisdihional | TTT I Congtit foal Provisions involved |, teoveedlings in He Dist: Cours ocenanecenecncan Dd | 2. Proseedicgs inthe Court of XK. | Stadeent of Material LS. e ea sac eectonenceesenssnat — a | AGASONS fk GRANTING THE LICTT san0e0mrecenmenmelo | Ars Td Avoid DeREMDAWTs FROM GETTING SANTENCED on DRUG lo TRA GUTED 5 THES COUT BYOMD CLAGTEY THE ASSUMED HARMIBES ERROR | PN DARD UnBEZ WAGE Pup GomMes -SimMeveE2 THT ROPES ONLY DE _ iso CONTIETIOSS COBL ESLE 0 9.90008 6-0 GOGO OO O-B AO fete age ool ee | ONCLUSION. 4 | (Ul Apreodix, | denial thr fe ttrn rehearing abd rehearing ex-b eo bent by the _ | Fourth Circuit couct of Appeals entered Mad 24,2080 021. | Hess's Bppea|4oths Tossa Crust (Searing) | a, entecec| Mao: 1, 202 One 0 90a oa oo totais j| Ce rr ateS WW harareve TOL F.8d 156, M3 C44 Cit, 2000) 0 nae oa ea asene oe oeoe ently S | pited Sales ve Gomer~Simenen, Iso F.3d 370,289, (4th Cin ADM ied States vp Brun ct ale _| tLCRAcOAD (th Cie. WOW) I Lssheh Stet ve, Benson ekoly [ig-Haas (L) (4th Cin 2090). [BsI1 CR 00180 [Uth.Cic, NOG) .naeenconenc