Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Davis, 01-7071 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-7071 Visitors: 6
Filed: May 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7071 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEVEN BLAKE DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-97-40-A, CA-00-560-7) Submitted: October 19, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Blake Davis, Appe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7071 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEVEN BLAKE DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-97-40-A, CA-00-560-7) Submitted: October 19, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Blake Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Steven Blake Davis seeks to appeal 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 appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Davis, Nos. CR-97-40-A; CA- 00-560-7 (W.D. Va. May 31, 2001). We further deny Davis’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer