United States v. Haneiph
This text of United States v. Haneiph (United States v. Haneiph) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7524
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KURT SHAWN HANEIPH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:96-cr-00227-CMH-1)
Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: December 1, 2008
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kurt Shawn Haneiph, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Kurt Haneiph appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Haneiph, No. 1:96-cr-00227-CMH-1 (E.D. Va. filed July 14,
entered July 15, 2008).
We grant Haneiph’s motion to file a supplemental
appendix. 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Haneiph, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-haneiph-ca4-2008.