Filed: Dec. 24, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7623 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PAUL CHRISTOPHER DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (2:94-cr-00239-JAB-1) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Christoph
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7623 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PAUL CHRISTOPHER DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (2:94-cr-00239-JAB-1) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Christophe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7623
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAUL CHRISTOPHER DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (2:94-cr-00239-JAB-1)
Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul Christopher Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael
Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Paul Christopher Davis appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion for a sentence reduction,
filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2012). We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Davis, No. 2:94-cr-00239-JAB-1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 30, 2013). 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
2