Filed: Mar. 27, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7834 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. GERALD A. HINDS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:00-cr-00319-JRS-1) Submitted: March 24, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald A. Hinds, Appellant Pro Se. Mi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7834 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. GERALD A. HINDS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:00-cr-00319-JRS-1) Submitted: March 24, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald A. Hinds, Appellant Pro Se. Mic..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7834 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. GERALD A. HINDS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:00-cr-00319-JRS-1) Submitted: March 24, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald A. Hinds, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill, Robert E. Trono, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gerald Hinds appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for a reduction of 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. Hinds, No. 3:00-cr-00319-JRS-1 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 5, 2013 & entered Sept. 11, 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
