US v. Bobby Gilyard

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999202677-2], denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999200170-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999170685-2] Originating case number: 8:09-cr-00274-HMH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999208621]. Mailed to: Gilyard. [13-7192]

Appeal: 13-7192

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/04/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7192

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BOBBY MICHAEL GILYARD, a/k/a Big Mike,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:09-cr-00274-HMH-1)

Submitted:

September 24, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

October 4, 2013

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Michael Gilyard, Appellant Pro Se.
Alan Lance Crick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7192

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/04/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Bobby
order

denying

Michael
his

18

Gilyard
U.S.C.

appeals

§

the

3582(c)(2)

district
(2006)

court’s

motion

for

reduction of sentence in which he sought relief under the Fair
Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”).

We have reviewed the record and

conclude that the district court properly determined Gilyard was
not entitled to relief.

See United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d

237, 248 (4th Cir. 2011) (holding that the FSA does not apply
retroactively
date).

to

defendants

Accordingly,

we

sentenced

affirm.

We

prior

to

further

its

effective

deny

Gilyard’s

motions for abeyance and appointment of 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

2