United States v. Hughes

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Hughes

57 F. App'x 185

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Hughes. Read the opinion of the Court — 95 F. App'x 467 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 13, 2003·No. 02-7767·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Lyman Hughes appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for modification of his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Hughes, No. CR-90-92-G (M.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2002). 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

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Lyman Hughes appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for modification of his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Hughes, No. CR-90-92-G (M.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2002). 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.

United States v. Hughes, 57 F. App'x 185 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

57 F. App'x 185 (United States v. Hughes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.