Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    United States v. John Hamilton, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of John Hamilton's motion to reduce his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It denied Hamilton's request to appoint counsel and did not hold oral arguments, determining the case was adequately briefed in submitted materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. John Hamilton, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of John Hamilton's motion to reduce his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It denied Hamilton's request to appoint counsel and did not hold oral arguments, determining the case was adequately briefed in submitted materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-04-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7822

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of John Hamilton's motion to reduce his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It denied Hamilton's request to appoint counsel and did not hold oral arguments, determining the case was adequately briefed in submitted materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    7 views2 pages

    United States v. John Hamilton, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of John Hamilton's motion to reduce his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning. It denied Hamilton's request to appoint counsel and did not hold oral arguments, determining the case was adequately briefed in submitted materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-7822

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JOHN HAMILTON, a/k/a Majestick,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior
    District Judge. (1:95-cr-00174-1)

    Submitted:

    April 21, 2016

    Decided:

    April 25, 2016

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    John P. Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se.


    Gary L. Call, John J.
    Frail,
    Steven
    Loew,
    Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorneys,
    Charleston, West Virginia; John Lanier File, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia; John Castle Parr,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    John Hamilton appeals the district courts order denying
    his

    18

    U.S.C.

    reduction.
    error.

    3582(c)(2)

    (2012)

    motion

    for

    sentence

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court.

    United States v. Hamilton, No. 1:95-cr-00174-1

    (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 6, 2015).

    We deny Hamiltons motion to appoint

    counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal
    before

    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like