Filed: Jul. 25, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6653 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY D. HAWKS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR- 94-206-S) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony D. Hawks, Appellant Pro Se. Jam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6653 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY D. HAWKS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR- 94-206-S) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony D. Hawks, Appellant Pro Se. Jami..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6653 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY D. HAWKS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR- 94-206-S) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony D. Hawks, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony D. Hawks appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Hawks’ motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Hawks, No. CR-94-206-S (D. Md. Apr. 14, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
