Filed: Jul. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6416 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PETER SIMPSON, a/k/a Peter Pillings, a/k/a Clarence Floyd, a/k/a Diamond, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:95-cr-00005-IMK-1) Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6416 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PETER SIMPSON, a/k/a Peter Pillings, a/k/a Clarence Floyd, a/k/a Diamond, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:95-cr-00005-IMK-1) Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublish..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6416 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PETER SIMPSON, a/k/a Peter Pillings, a/k/a Clarence Floyd, a/k/a Diamond, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:95-cr-00005-IMK-1) Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia; Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Peter Simpson appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Simpson, No. 1:95-cr-00005-IMK-1 (N.D.W. 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
