Filed: Oct. 20, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7078 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILL HAMILTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (3:96-CR-00679-MBS-2) Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 20, 2008 Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Will Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7078 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILL HAMILTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (3:96-CR-00679-MBS-2) Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 20, 2008 Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Will Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. Ja..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7078 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILL HAMILTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (3:96-CR-00679-MBS-2) Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 20, 2008 Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Will Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Will Hamilton appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hamilton, No. 3:96-cr-00679-MBS-2 (D.S.C. June 19, 2008). 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
