Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Davis, 01-6240 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-6240 Visitors: 40
Filed: Aug. 29, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6240 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROMERO DAVIS, a/k/a BeBe, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-98-360, CA-99-3879-19-0) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per cur
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6240 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROMERO DAVIS, a/k/a BeBe, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-98-360, CA-99-3879-19-0) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 29, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Romero Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Romero 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 accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis- miss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Davis, Nos. CR-98-360; CA-99-3879-19-0 (D.S.C. filed Oct. 23, 2000, entered Oct. 24, 2000; filed Jan. 23, 2001, entered Jan. 24, 2001). 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