Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Hughes, 08-8098 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-8098 Visitors: 16
Filed: Mar. 16, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8098 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH BRONSON HUGHES, a/k/a Andrew Alfonso Skeeter, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (6:02-cr-70105-nkm-2) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 16, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubl
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8098 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH BRONSON HUGHES, a/k/a Andrew Alfonso Skeeter, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (6:02-cr-70105-nkm-2) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 16, 2009 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Bronson Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorneys, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth Bronson Hughes appeals the district court’s order granting relief on his motion for reduction of sentence filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006), and its order denying relief on Hughes' subsequently filed § 3582(c)(2) motion. We find no reversible error and we thus affirm both orders for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hughes, No. 6:02-cr-70105-nkm-2 (W.D. Va. Sept. 2 & 19, 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
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