Filed: Dec. 27, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7082 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL HICKS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:99-cr-00445-CMH) Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 27, 2007 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7082 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL HICKS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:99-cr-00445-CMH) Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 27, 2007 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7082 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL HICKS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:99-cr-00445-CMH) Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 27, 2007 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Whitmarsh Drew, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Hicks appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of his criminal conviction for assaulting a correctional officer. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hicks, No. 1:99-cr- 00445-CMH (E.D. Va. June 27, 2007). We deny Hicks’ motion for stay and 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 -
