Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Gilliam, 07-7580 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-7580
Filed: Apr. 28, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7580 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROY LEE GILLIAM, Defendant - Appellant. No. 08-6034 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROY LEE GILLIAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (2:90-cr-00007-GMW-1) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 28, 2008 Before KING
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7580 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROY LEE GILLIAM, Defendant - Appellant. No. 08-6034 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROY LEE GILLIAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (2:90-cr-00007-GMW-1) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 28, 2008 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Lee Gilliam, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Roy Lee Gilliam appeals the district court’s orders: (1) granting, in part, his motion for modification of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000), denying his motion for appointment of counsel, and denying a resentencing hearing, and (2) denying his motion for bail pending appeal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Gilliam, No. 2:90-cr-00007-GMW-1 (W.D. Va. Sept. 26, 2007; filed Nov. 28, 2007 & entered Nov. 29, 2007). 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 - 3 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer