United States v. Hanna

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 24, 2009
Docket08-7155
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Hanna (United States v. Hanna) 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.

Bluebook
United States v. Hanna, (4th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7155

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH JAMES HANNA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:95-cr-00007-CMC-1)

Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth James Hanna, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Kenneth James Hanna appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006), the court’s subsequent order granting

his motion for reconsideration, granting his § 3582(c) motion,

and reducing his sentence, and the court’s order denying his

second motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hanna,

No. 4:95-cr-00007-CMC-1 (D.S.C. June 23, 2008; July 17, 2008;

Sept. 9, 2008). See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247 (4th

Cir. 2009). We deny Hanna’s motion to remand and his motion for

stay. 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

United States v. Dunphy
551 F.3d 247 (Fourth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Hanna, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hanna-ca4-2009.