Filed: Dec. 01, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6926 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEANGELO HUNT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00316-RLW-1) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 1, 2010 Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6926 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEANGELO HUNT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00316-RLW-1) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 1, 2010 Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6926 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEANGELO HUNT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00316-RLW-1) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 1, 2010 Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Deangelo Hunt, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Everett James, Jr., Chief Deputy Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Deangelo Hunt appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for resentencing in light of legislation regarding the mandatory penalties for crack cocaine that was pending at the time his motion was filed. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hunt, No. 3:06-cr-00316-RLW-1 (E.D. Va. June 21, 2010). 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
