United States v. Hill

513 F. App'x 296
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 6, 2013·No. No. 12-7485·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Pedro Falcon Hill appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a reduction of sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2011). We have reviewed the record and conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir.2010) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Hill, No. 3:07-cr-00028-REP-1 (E.D.Va. Aug. 22, 2012). Furthermore, we deny Hill’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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. Hill, 513 F. App'x 296 (4th Cir. 2013).

513 F. App'x 296 (United States v. Hill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Stewart
595 F.3d 197 (Fourth Circuit, 2010)