Filed: Jan. 22, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7536 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:00-cr-00024-JPB-JES-1) Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7536 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:00-cr-00024-JPB-JES-1) Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7536 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:00-cr-00024-JPB-JES-1) Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying his requests for correction of his presentence report and for identification of a contact pursuant to the Second Chance Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hairston, No. 3:00-cr-00024-JPB-JES-1 (N.D.W. Va., Aug. 30, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
