US v. Bobby Gilyard, No. 18-7071 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 29, 2019.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7071 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BOBBY MICHAEL GILYARD, a/k/a Big Mike,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: December 7, 2018 Decided: December 26, 2018 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Michael Gilyard, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bobby Michael Gilyard appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion for relief from its prior order denying his motions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) for a sentence reduction based on the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A] district court ‘may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed’ unless the Bureau of Prisons moves for a reduction, the Sentencing Commission amends the applicable Guidelines range, or another statute or Rule 35 expressly permits the court to do so.”) (citations omitted). 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 * We affirmed the district court’s prior order, ruling it “properly determined Gilyard was not entitled to relief.” United States v. Gilyard, 541 F. App’x 305, 306 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Bullard, 645 F.3d 237, 248 (4th Cir. 2011)). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
