Filed: Feb. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6850 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVE HICKMAN, a/k/a Steve Miller, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:93-cr-00144-BO-2) Submitted: December 6, 2011 Decided: February 2, 2012 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublishe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6850 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVE HICKMAN, a/k/a Steve Miller, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:93-cr-00144-BO-2) Submitted: December 6, 2011 Decided: February 2, 2012 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6850
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVE HICKMAN, a/k/a Steve Miller,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:93-cr-00144-BO-2)
Submitted: December 6, 2011 Decided: February 2, 2012
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steve Hickman, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steve Hickman appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion to reconsider its previous denial of his
motion to modify sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (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. Hickman, No. 5:93-cr-00144-BO-2
(E.D.N.C. Feb. 10, 2011). 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