United States v. David Hill

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 23, 2011·No. 11-7227·Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7227

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID HILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1)

Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Dabney P. Langhorne, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial, David Hill was convicted of

conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, 18

U.S.C. § 371 (2006), three counts of armed bank robbery, 18

U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (2006), and three counts of use of a

firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(g) (2006).

Hill was sentenced, in December 2001, to an aggregate term of

984 months’ imprisonment. On direct appeal, this court affirmed

Hill’s convictions and sentence. See United States v. Hill, 78

F. App’x 223 (4th Cir. 2003). In September 2011, Hill filed

another notice of appeal of the criminal judgment. However,

because we have previously affirmed this criminal judgment, we

dismiss the appeal as duplicative and untimely. 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.

DISMISSED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. David Hill, (4th Cir. 2011).

United States v. David Hill (United States v. David Hill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Hill
78 F. App'x 223 (Fourth Circuit, 2003)