Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    United States v. Davy, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rohan Davy appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the motion. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Davy's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's denial of Davy's § 2255 motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Davy, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Rohan Davy appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the motion. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Davy's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's denial of Davy's § 2255 motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-05-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6147

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Rohan Davy appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the motion. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Davy's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's denial of Davy's § 2255 motion.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Davy, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rohan Davy appealed the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for denying the motion. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denied Davy's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the district court's denial of Davy's § 2255 motion.

    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. 99-6147

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ROHAN LLOYD DAVY,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-3, CA-98-958-5-BO)

    Submitted:

    May 13, 1999

    Decided:

    May 18, 1999

    Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Rohan Lloyd Davy, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Rohan Davy seeks to appeal the district courts order denying
    his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).
    We have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and
    find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

    appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

    United States v. Davy, No. CA-98-958-5-BO (E.D.N.C.

    Jan. 7, 1999).*

    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

    Although the district courts order is marked as filed on


    January 6, 1999, the district courts records show that it was
    entered on the docket sheet on January 7, 1999. It is the date the
    order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective
    date of the district courts decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and
    79(a); Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
    2

    You might also like