Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Gregory Hipps, 12-6523 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-6523 Visitors: 37
Filed: Jul. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6523 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY LEE HIPPS, a/k/a G, a/k/a Bryan Cross, a/k/a Bryan Dwight Cross, a/k/a Gregory Lee Hipps, Jr., a/k/a Patrick Jacques Pluviose, a/k/a Mark A. Pointer, a/k/a John Peters, a/k/a Marcus Lee Smith, a/k/a Eddie Junior Lawson, Jr., a/k/a Gregory Darrell Stewart, a/k/a Roger Lee Williams, a/k/a Kevin Smith, a/k/a Marcus A. Johnson, a/k/a Brian K. Cross, Defendant - App
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6523 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY LEE HIPPS, a/k/a G, a/k/a Bryan Cross, a/k/a Bryan Dwight Cross, a/k/a Gregory Lee Hipps, Jr., a/k/a Patrick Jacques Pluviose, a/k/a Mark A. Pointer, a/k/a John Peters, a/k/a Marcus Lee Smith, a/k/a Eddie Junior Lawson, Jr., a/k/a Gregory Darrell Stewart, a/k/a Roger Lee Williams, a/k/a Kevin Smith, a/k/a Marcus A. Johnson, a/k/a Brian K. Cross, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:96-cr-00208-RAJ-1) Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Lee Hipps, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gregory Lee Hipps appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (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. Hipps, No. 2:96-cr-00208-RAJ-1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 17, 2012). 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer