US v. Hassan Hine
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:07-cr-00323-BO-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Hassan Genell Hines. [17-6968]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
HASSAN GENELL HINES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00323-BO-1)
Submitted: September 28, 2017
Decided: October 3, 2017
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hassan Genell Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Stephen Aubry West, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Hassan Genell Hines appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion as moot. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues
raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hines’s informal brief
does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Hines has forfeited
appellate review of the court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430
n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.
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?