Filed: Oct. 21, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6754 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID HILL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 21, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Hill, Appellant Pro Se. D
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6754 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID HILL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 21, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Da..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6754 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID HILL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 21, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Dabney P. Langhorne, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Hill appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Hill, No. 1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1 (E.D. Va. May 5, 2010). Further, we deny Hill’s motion for an en banc hearing. 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
