Filed: Oct. 25, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6273 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEROLD LEE DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenwood. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-429) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerol
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6273 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEROLD LEE DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenwood. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-429) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerold..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6273 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEROLD LEE DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenwood. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-429) Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerold Lee Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gerold Lee Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion to modify his sentence. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Davis, No. CR-93-429 (D.S.C. Jan. 25, 2001). 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. AFFIRMED 2
