Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    United States v. Arthur Hairston, SR., 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's partial granting of Arthur Lee Hairston's motion to reduce his sentence. Hairston appealed the district court's order under 18 U.S.C. 3582, which allows reductions of sentences under certain circumstances. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible errors in the district court's decision. As such, the appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling for the same reasons cited in its order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    United States v. Arthur Hairston, SR., 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's partial granting of Arthur Lee Hairston's motion to reduce his sentence. Hairston appealed the district court's order under 18 U.S.C. 3582, which allows reductions of sentences under certain circumstances. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible errors in the district court's decision. As such, the appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling for the same reasons cited in its order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-02-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-7535

    Original Title

    United States v. Arthur Hairston, Sr., 4th Cir. (2012)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's partial granting of Arthur Lee Hairston's motion to reduce his sentence. Hairston appealed the district court's order under 18 U.S.C. 3582, which allows reductions of sentences under certain circumstances. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible errors in the district court's decision. As such, the appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling for the same reasons cited in its order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views2 pages

    United States v. Arthur Hairston, SR., 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's partial granting of Arthur Lee Hairston's motion to reduce his sentence. Hairston appealed the district court's order under 18 U.S.C. 3582, which allows reductions of sentences under certain circumstances. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible errors in the district court's decision. As such, the appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling for the same reasons cited in its order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-7535

    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:

    February 16, 2012

    Decided:

    February 23, 2012

    Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, 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 appeals the district court's order
    granting in part Hairstons 18 U.S.C. 3582 (2006) motion for
    reduction of sentence.

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

    by

    court.

    the

    district

    United

    States

    v.

    Hairston,

    3:00-cr-00024-JPB-JES-1 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 1, 2011).

    No.

    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

    You might also like