Filed: Oct. 05, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6818 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KALI A. HILL, a/k/a Eldridge L. Hill, a/k/a Kali, a/k/a Fly, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00162-PMD-1) Submitted: August 24, 2009 Decided: October 5, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6818 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KALI A. HILL, a/k/a Eldridge L. Hill, a/k/a Kali, a/k/a Fly, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00162-PMD-1) Submitted: August 24, 2009 Decided: October 5, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6818 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KALI A. HILL, a/k/a Eldridge L. Hill, a/k/a Kali, a/k/a Fly, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00162-PMD-1) Submitted: August 24, 2009 Decided: October 5, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kali A. Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Thomas Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kali A. Hill appeals the district court’s order summarily denying his motion to clarify the presentence report. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. See United States v. Hill, No. 2:03-cr-00162-PMD-1 (D.S.C. May 1, 2008). 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
