Filed: Apr. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8074 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM LEWIS HINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:93-cr-00258-MOC-7) Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013 Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8074 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM LEWIS HINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:93-cr-00258-MOC-7) Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013 Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-8074
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM LEWIS HINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:93-cr-00258-MOC-7)
Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013
Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Lewis Hinson, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina;
Robert J. Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Lewis Hinson appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (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. Hinson, No.
3:93-cr-00258-MOC-7 (W.D.N.C. June 25, 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