Filed: Feb. 02, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6856 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. HAYWARD WILLIAM PARKER, JR., Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (2:90-cr-00064-JAB-2) Submitted: January 11, 2010 Decided: February 2, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6856 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. HAYWARD WILLIAM PARKER, JR., Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (2:90-cr-00064-JAB-2) Submitted: January 11, 2010 Decided: February 2, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6856 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. HAYWARD WILLIAM PARKER, JR., Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (2:90-cr-00064-JAB-2) Submitted: January 11, 2010 Decided: February 2, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Norman Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hayward William Parker, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his “Motion for Modification of Sentence” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Parker’s motion for transcripts at government expense and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Parker, No. 2:90-cr-00064-JAB-2 (M.D.N.C. May 1, 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