Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David HILL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-02
Citations: 474 F. App'x 974
Docket Number: No. 12-6580
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David HILL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 974–975

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David HILL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 12-6580.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 26, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 2, 2012.
David Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Inayat Delawala, Assistant United States Attorney, Dabney P. Langhorne, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, David Hill was convicted of conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006), three counts of armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (2006), and three counts of use of a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(g) (2006). Hill was sentenced, in December 2001, to an aggregate term of 984 months' imprisonment. On direct appeal, this court affirmed Hill's convictions and sentence. See United States v. Hill, 78 Fed.Appx. 223 (4th Cir.2003). In March 2012, Hill filed a notice of appeal from the district court's July 2001 pre-trial order denying Hill's motion to dismiss his indictment.
We dismiss this appeal for two reasons. First, the notice of appeal is exceedingly late. Second, we previously considered Hill's arguments regarding the alleged violations of the Speedy Trial Act and the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act on direct appeal and found them without merit. See id. Accordingly, we dismiss the instant appeal as untimely and duplicative. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.