Filed: Jun. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6449 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LEWIS R. HARDY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:07-cr-00120-MSD-JEB-1) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lewis R. Hardy, Appellant Pro Se
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6449 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LEWIS R. HARDY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:07-cr-00120-MSD-JEB-1) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lewis R. Hardy, Appellant Pro Se...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6449 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LEWIS R. HARDY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:07-cr-00120-MSD-JEB-1) Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lewis R. Hardy, Appellant Pro Se. Cameron Rountree, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lewis R. Hardy appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
