Filed: Feb. 03, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7175 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROLANDUS DEMETRIUS PIPKIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:00-cr-00134-JAB-1) Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rol
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7175 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROLANDUS DEMETRIUS PIPKIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:00-cr-00134-JAB-1) Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rola..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7175 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROLANDUS DEMETRIUS PIPKIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:00-cr-00134-JAB-1) Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rolandus Demetrius Pipkin, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rolandus Demetrius Pipkin appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Pipkin, No. 1:00-cr-00134-JAB-1 (M.D.N.C. July 22, 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
