Filed: Mar. 05, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7848 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-120-F, CA-98-748-5-F) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 5, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Davis, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7848 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-120-F, CA-98-748-5-F) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 5, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Davis, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7848 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-120-F, CA-98-748-5-F) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 5, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas B. Murphy, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Leroy Davis appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal- ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Davis, Nos. CR-95-120-F; CA-98-748-5-F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 5, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2