Filed: Nov. 24, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7331 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RALPH D. DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00254-TSE-1) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph D. Davis, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7331 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RALPH D. DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00254-TSE-1) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph D. Davis, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7331 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RALPH D. DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00254-TSE-1) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph D. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward J. McAndrew, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charles Philip Rosenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Andrew McCormack, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ralph D. Davis appeals the district court’s order denying his motions seeking to obtain copies of Title III orders * relevant to his criminal conviction, and for appointment of counsel. 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. 1:07-cr-00254-TSE-1 (E.D. Va. June 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 * See 18 U.S.C. § 2510-2522 (2006). 2