United States v. Hairston

408 F. App'x 659
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 20, 2011·No. No. 10-7310·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., appeals the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion to modify his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hairston, No. 3:00-cr-00024-JPB-JES-1, 2010 WL 3521591 (N.D.W.Va. Sept. 3, 2010). We deny Hairston’s “Motion for the Court to Issue an Order.” 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. Hairston, 408 F. App'x 659 (4th Cir. 2011).

408 F. App'x 659 (United States v. Hairston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hairston v. United States
181 L. Ed. 2d 239 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Arthur Hairston, Sr. v. William Scism
423 F. App'x 130 (Third Circuit, 2011)