Filed: Oct. 01, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6498 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID L. HODGE, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-94-36) Submitted: August 31, 2001 Decided: October 1, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David L. Hodge, Jr., A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6498 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID L. HODGE, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-94-36) Submitted: August 31, 2001 Decided: October 1, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David L. Hodge, Jr., Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6498 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID L. HODGE, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-94-36) Submitted: August 31, 2001 Decided: October 1, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David L. Hodge, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Paul Arthur Raaf, UNITED STATES ARMY, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David L. Hodge, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his term of imprisonment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hodge, No. CR-94-36 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2001). 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
