Filed: Jul. 20, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6645 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM T. DAVIS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CR-97-682, CA-99-2192-4-12) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William T. Davis, Jr
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6645 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM T. DAVIS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CR-97-682, CA-99-2192-4-12) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William T. Davis, Jr...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6645 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM T. DAVIS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CR-97-682, CA-99-2192-4-12) Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William T. Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Hechtkopf, Robert Esten Lindsay, Gregory Victor Davis, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William T. Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer- tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Davis, Nos. CR-97-682; CA- 99-2192-4-12 (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 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