Filed: Mar. 18, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6078 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ERIC DAVIS, a/k/a Lil E, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-00672-JFA-1) Submitted: March 2, 2010 Decided: March 18, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Davis, Appellant Pr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6078 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ERIC DAVIS, a/k/a Lil E, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-00672-JFA-1) Submitted: March 2, 2010 Decided: March 18, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Davis, Appellant Pro..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6078 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ERIC DAVIS, a/k/a Lil E, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-00672-JFA-1) Submitted: March 2, 2010 Decided: March 18, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eric Davis appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Davis, No. 3:07-cr-00672-JFA-1 (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 2009). 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
