US v. Bobby Hazel

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:93-cr-00062-JCC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998597002]. Mailed to: B. Hazel. [11-6376, 11-6377, 11-6378, 11-6379]

Appeal: 11-6376

Document: 10

Date Filed: 05/24/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6376

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BOBBY HAZEL,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-6377

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BOBBY HAZEL,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-6378

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.

Appeal: 11-6376

Document: 10

Date Filed: 05/24/2011

Page: 2 of 3

BOBBY HAZEL,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-6379

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BOBBY HAZEL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:93-cr-00062-JCC-1; 1:97-cv-00633-AVB)

Submitted:

May 19, 2011

Before TRAXLER,
Judges.

Chief

Decided:

Judge,

and

AGEE

and

May 24, 2011

KEENAN,

Circuit

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Hazel, Appellant
Assistant United States
Appellee.

Pro Se.
Attorney,

Lawrence Joseph Leiser,
Alexandria, Virginia, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-6376

Document: 10

Date Filed: 05/24/2011

Page: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
In
district

these

court

consolidated

orders

denying

appeals,
his

Bobby

motion

for

Hazel

appeals

appointment

of

counsel and for DNA testing under 18 U.S.C. § 3600 (2006), and
denying his motions for clarification and for reconsideration.
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and
affirm for the reasons cited by the district court.
States

v.

Hazel,

Nos.

1:93-cr-00062-JCC-1;

See United

1:97-cv-00633-AVB

(E.D. Va. Jan. 10, 2011; Feb. 2, 2011; Feb. 4, 2011; Feb. 24,
2011).
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3