Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    United States v. Davis, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Eddie Levert Davis appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated, denying Davis's motion for appointment of counsel without oral argument because the legal issues were adequately briefed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Davis, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    Eddie Levert Davis appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated, denying Davis's motion for appointment of counsel without oral argument because the legal issues were adequately briefed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-12-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-7206

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Eddie Levert Davis appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated, denying Davis's motion for appointment of counsel without oral argument because the legal issues were adequately briefed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    9 views2 pages

    United States v. Davis, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Eddie Levert Davis appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated, denying Davis's motion for appointment of counsel without oral argument because the legal issues were adequately briefed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-7206

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    EDDIE LEVERT DAVIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Henry E. Hudson, District
    Judge. (3:07-cr-00415-HEH-1)

    Submitted:

    November 18, 2010

    Before SHEDD and


    Circuit Judge.

    AGEE,

    Circuit

    Decided:

    Judges,

    and

    December 2, 2010

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Eddie Levert Davis, Appellant Pro Se.


    Sara Elizabeth Chase,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Eddie Levert Davis appeals the district courts order
    denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a
    reduction in sentence.
    reversible

    error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    Accordingly,

    we

    deny

    Daviss

    motion

    for

    appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the


    district court.

    United States v. Davis, No. 3:07-cr-00415-HEH-1

    (E.D. Va. Mar. 2, 2010).

    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

    You might also like