Filed: Oct. 02, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6763 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DERRICK TYRONE HATFIELD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:99-cr-00068-WO-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: October 2, 2013 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6763 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DERRICK TYRONE HATFIELD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:99-cr-00068-WO-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: October 2, 2013 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubli..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6763 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DERRICK TYRONE HATFIELD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:99-cr-00068-WO-1) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: October 2, 2013 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derrick Tyrone Hatfield, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Robert Michael Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Derrick Tyrone Hatfield appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of 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. Hatfield, No. 1:99-cr- 00068-WO-1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 24, 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
