Filed: Mar. 22, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7674 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTONIO DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:04-cr-00039-H-1) Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 22, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Davis, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7674 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTONIO DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:04-cr-00039-H-1) Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 22, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Davis, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7674 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTONIO DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:04-cr-00039-H-1) Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 22, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Antonio Davis appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence. 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. 4:04-cr-00039-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 20, 2009). We deny Davis’s motion for review of Government fraud. 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
