Filed: Jul. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6751 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATTHEW DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant.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. (6:95-cr-00284-JAB-1) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014 Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matt
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6751 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATTHEW DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant.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. (6:95-cr-00284-JAB-1) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014 Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matth..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6751
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW 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. (6:95-cr-00284-JAB-1)
Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Angela
Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Davis appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reconsideration of its order granting his
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction. *
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We
therefore affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
See United States v. Davis, No. 6:95–cr–00284–JAB–1 (M.D.N.C.
Apr. 30, 2014). 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 in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
Although the district court granted Davis’ § 3582(c)(2)
motion, the reduction granted by the court did not reduce Davis’
sentence to the full extent he requested.
2