Filed: Sep. 27, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7003 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. GILBERT COLEMAN SHEPHERD, a/k/a Gill, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00022-GMG-DJJ-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed b
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7003 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. GILBERT COLEMAN SHEPHERD, a/k/a Gill, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00022-GMG-DJJ-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7003 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. GILBERT COLEMAN SHEPHERD, a/k/a Gill, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:09-cr-00022-GMG-DJJ-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gilbert Coleman Shepherd, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gilbert Coleman Shepherd appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for early termination of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Shepherd, No. 3:09-cr-00022-GMG-DJJ-1 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 13, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
