Filed: Jan. 26, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7144 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DINO MARCELLUS GILES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:94-cr-00212-WMN-1) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dino Marcellus Giles,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7144 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DINO MARCELLUS GILES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:94-cr-00212-WMN-1) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dino Marcellus Giles, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7144
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DINO MARCELLUS GILES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:94-cr-00212-WMN-1)
Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dino Marcellus Giles, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Slaymaker Sale,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dino Marcellus Giles appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Giles, No. 1:94-cr-
00212-WMN-1 (D. Md. Aug. 7, 2008); see United States v. Hood,
556 F.3d 226, 235-36 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
130 S. Ct. 321
(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