US v. Vance Gibson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998355134-2] Originating case number: 6:93-cr-00211-WLO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998442323] [10-6344]

Download PDF
US v. Vance Gibson Doc. 0 Case: 10-6344 Document: 17 Date Filed: 10/08/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6344 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. VANCE MARCEL GIBSON, a/k/a Reginald Hilton Belton, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (6:93-cr-00211-WLO-1) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 8, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vance Marcel Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 10-6344 Document: 17 Date Filed: 10/08/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Vance Marcel Gibson appeals the district court's orders denying his motion for a reduction of sentence filed, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006), and his motion for reconsideration. reversible error. orders Gibson, 2010). counsel. legal before for No. the We have reviewed the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm the district court's stated there. See United 22 States & May v. 11, reasons 6:93-cr-00211-WLO-1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. Further, we deny Gibson's motion for the appointment of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional contentions the court would process. AFFIRMED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?