Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Hanna, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings on Kenneth Hanna's motions for reduction and reconsideration of his sentence. The district court initially denied Hanna's motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) but later granted the motion and reduced his sentence upon reconsideration. It then denied Hanna's second motion for reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. It also denied Hanna's motion to remand the case and his motion to stay the proceedings.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-02-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-7155

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings on Kenneth Hanna's motions for reduction and reconsideration of his sentence. The district court initially denied Hanna's motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) but later granted the motion and reduced his sentence upon reconsideration. It then denied Hanna's second motion for reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. It also denied Hanna's motion to remand the case and his motion to stay the proceedings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views2 pages

    United States v. Hanna, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings on Kenneth Hanna's motions for reduction and reconsideration of his sentence. The district court initially denied Hanna's motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) but later granted the motion and reduced his sentence upon reconsideration. It then denied Hanna's second motion for reconsideration. The Fourth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. It also denied Hanna's motion to remand the case and his motion to stay the proceedings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-7155

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    KENNETH JAMES HANNA,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.
    Cameron McGowan Currie, District
    Judge. (4:95-cr-00007-CMC-1)

    Submitted:

    February 19, 2009

    Decided:

    February 24, 2009

    Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kenneth James Hanna, Appellant Pro Se.


    Alfred William Walker
    Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Kenneth James Hanna appeals the district courts order
    denying

    his

    motion

    for

    reduction

    of

    sentence

    pursuant

    to

    18

    U.S.C. 3582(c) (2006), the courts subsequent order granting


    his motion for reconsideration, granting his 3582(c) motion,
    and reducing his sentence, and the courts order denying his
    second motion for reconsideration.
    and find no reversible error.

    We have reviewed the record

    Accordingly, we affirm for the

    reasons stated by the district court.

    United States v. Hanna,

    No. 4:95-cr-00007-CMC-1 (D.S.C. June 23, 2008; July 17, 2008;


    Sept. 9, 2008).
    Cir. 2009).
    stay.
    legal
    before

    See United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247 (4th

    We deny Hannas motion to remand and his motion for

    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

    You might also like