Filed: May 28, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-8043 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL HILL, a/k/a Saleet, a/k/a Steve Philip, a/k/a Junito Tomilson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:96-cr-00042-F-1) Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 28, 2014 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Ju
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-8043 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL HILL, a/k/a Saleet, a/k/a Steve Philip, a/k/a Junito Tomilson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:96-cr-00042-F-1) Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 28, 2014 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Jud..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-8043
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL HILL, a/k/a Saleet, a/k/a Steve Philip, a/k/a Junito
Tomilson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:96-cr-00042-F-1)
Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 28, 2014
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Hill, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Hill appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for modification of sentence, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Hill, No. 7:96-cr-
00042-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 18, 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