Filed: Mar. 04, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6765 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JESSE HOFFMAN, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (3:01-cr-00015-jpj-1) Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 4, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jesse Hoffman,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6765 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JESSE HOFFMAN, III, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (3:01-cr-00015-jpj-1) Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 4, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jesse Hoffman, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6765
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESSE HOFFMAN, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James P. Jones, Chief
District Judge. (3:01-cr-00015-jpj-1)
Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 4, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jesse Hoffman, III, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Spodick Healey,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jesse Hoffman, III, appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reconsideration of the order reducing his
sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Hoffman, No. 3:01-cr-00015-
jpj-1 (W.D. Va. Apr. 22, 2008), and the reasons expressed in our
recent decision in United States v. Dunphy,
551 F.3d 247, 253-56
(4th Cir. 2009). 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