Filed: Mar. 13, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7767 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER LYMAN HUGHES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-90-92-G) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christophe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7767 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER LYMAN HUGHES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-90-92-G) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7767 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER LYMAN HUGHES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-90-92-G) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Lyman Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. Walter C. Horton, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Christopher Lyman Hughes appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for modification of his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Hughes, No. CR-90-92-G (M.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2002). 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
