United States v. Gibson

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Gibson. Read the opinion of the Court — 359 F. App'x 397
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 8, 2010·No. 10-6344·Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6344

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VANCE MARCEL GIBSON, a/k/a Reginald Hilton Belton,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (6:93-cr-00211-WLO-1)

Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 8, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vance Marcel Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Vance Marcel Gibson appeals the district court’s

orders denying his motion for a reduction of sentence filed,

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006), and his motion for

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

orders for the reasons stated there. See United States v.

Gibson, No. 6:93-cr-00211-WLO-1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 22 & May 11,

2010). Further, we deny Gibson’s motion for the appointment of

counsel. 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

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

United States v. Gibson, (4th Cir. 2010).

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

Related