Filed: Jul. 25, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6739 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONALD HINKLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR-91-119-R) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Hinkle, Appellant Pro Se. Jan Paul M
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6739 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONALD HINKLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR-91-119-R) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Hinkle, Appellant Pro Se. Jan Paul Mi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6739
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DONALD HINKLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CR-91-119-R)
Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald Hinkle, Appellant Pro Se. Jan Paul Miller, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Donald Hinkle appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)
(West Supp. 2000). Under § 3582(c), the court may not modify a
term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except in very narrow
circumstances not applicable here. Further, we cannot consider the
claims raised in Hinkle’s informal brief that were not raised in
the district court. See Muth v. United States,
1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th
Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2