Filed: Apr. 22, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7807 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CECIL MCDONALD DAVIS, Defendant -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. (1:94-cr-00370-TSE-1) Submitted: April 12, 2010 Decided: April 22, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7807 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CECIL MCDONALD DAVIS, Defendant -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. (1:94-cr-00370-TSE-1) Submitted: April 12, 2010 Decided: April 22, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7807 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CECIL MCDONALD DAVIS, Defendant -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. (1:94-cr-00370-TSE-1) Submitted: April 12, 2010 Decided: April 22, 2010 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cecil McDonald Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cecil McDonald Davis appeals the district court’s orders denying his petition to reopen the appeal period and his motion for reconsideration. 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. 1:94-cr-00370-TSE-1 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 24, 2009 & entered Aug. 27, 2009; filed Sept. 22, 2009 & entered Sept. 23, 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
