The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
13-8043•United States of America v. Michael Hill, a/k/a Saleet, a/k/a Steve Philip, a/k/a Junito Tomilson
13-8043Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 28, 2014
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-8043
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL HILL, a/k/a Saleet, a/k/a Steve Philip, a/k/a Junito
Tomilson,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:96-cr-00042-F-1)
Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 28, 2014
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Hill, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Hill appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for modification of sentence, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Hill, No. 7:96-cr-
00042-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 18, 2013). 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.