The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-7822•United States of America v. John Hamilton, a/k/a Majestick
15-7822Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 25, 2016
UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
John Hamilton appeals the district court’s order denying
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence
reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. 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 Hamilton’s motion to appoint
counsel and 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.