Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    United States v. Hill, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Lorenza Hill's motion for reduction of sentence. Hill appealed the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Hill's motion for the reasons stated in its September 19, 2008 order.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Hill, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Lorenza Hill's motion for reduction of sentence. Hill appealed the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Hill's motion for the reasons stated in its September 19, 2008 order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-05-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-8181

    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 denial of Lorenza Hill's motion for reduction of sentence. Hill appealed the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Hill's motion for the reasons stated in its September 19, 2008 order.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Hill, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Lorenza Hill's motion for reduction of sentence. Hill appealed the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Hill's motion for the reasons stated in its September 19, 2008 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. 08-8181

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LORENZA S. HILL, a/k/a Squeezy,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Robert E. Payne, Senior
    District Judge. (3:05-cr-00302-REP-1)

    Submitted:

    April 23, 2009

    Decided:

    May 1, 2009

    Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Lorenza S. Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia N. Hawkins, OFFICE OF


    THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Lorenza

    S.

    Hill

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction


    of sentence.
    error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court.
    (E.D.

    Va.

    Sept.

    United States v.
    19,

    2008).

    We

    Hill, No. 3:05-cr-00302-REP-1


    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