Filed: Jun. 01, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6289 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. VICTOR WILLIAM HARGRAVE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (4:95-cr-00186-JAB-1) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Victor William Hargr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6289 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. VICTOR WILLIAM HARGRAVE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (4:95-cr-00186-JAB-1) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Victor William Hargra..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6289
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
VICTOR WILLIAM HARGRAVE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (4:95-cr-00186-JAB-1)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Victor William Hargrave, Appellant Pro Se. L. Patrick Auld,
Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Victor William Hargrave appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction
of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Hargrave, No.
4:95-cr-00186-JAB-1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 11, 2011). 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