Filed: Jun. 22, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6798 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DWIGHT LAMONT HUNTER, a/k/a Dee, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:94-cr-00111-GCM-12) Submitted: June 15, 2010 Decided: June 22, 2010 Before MICHAEL, * MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6798 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DWIGHT LAMONT HUNTER, a/k/a Dee, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:94-cr-00111-GCM-12) Submitted: June 15, 2010 Decided: June 22, 2010 Before MICHAEL, * MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwig..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6798
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DWIGHT LAMONT HUNTER, a/k/a Dee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (3:94-cr-00111-GCM-12)
Submitted: June 15, 2010 Decided: June 22, 2010
Before MICHAEL, * MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwight Lamont Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*
Judge Michael was a member of the original panel but did
not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a
quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
PER CURIAM:
Dwight Lamont Hunter appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for
sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Hunter, No.
3:94-cr-00111-GCM-12 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 8, 2009). 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