United States v. Hopkins

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Hopkins

583 F. App'x 180

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 11, 2014·No. No. 13-7814·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Carl Eric Hopkins appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel the Government to file a Fed.R. Crim.P. 35(b) motion for reduction of 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. Hopkins, No. 3:02-cr-00540-JFA-1 (D.S.C. Oct. 8, 2013). We deny Hopkins’ motion to appoint/assign 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Carl Eric Hopkins appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel the Government to file a Fed.R. Crim.P. 35(b) motion for reduction of 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. Hopkins, No. 3:02-cr-00540-JFA-1 (D.S.C. Oct. 8, 2013). We deny Hopkins’ motion to appoint/assign 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.

United States v. Hopkins, 583 F. App'x 180 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

583 F. App'x 180 (United States v. Hopkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related