Filed: Oct. 06, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6546 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAMUEL L. HUCKS, JR., a/k/a Junie Boy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:98-cr-00047-JBF) Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 6, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6546 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAMUEL L. HUCKS, JR., a/k/a Junie Boy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:98-cr-00047-JBF) Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 6, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6546 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAMUEL L. HUCKS, JR., a/k/a Junie Boy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:98-cr-00047-JBF) Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 6, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel L. Hucks, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. Groner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Samuel L. Hucks, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hucks, No. 2:98-cr-00047-JBF (E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2006). 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 -
