Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Michael Troy Davis, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Michael Troy Davis's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Davis's motion. The appellate court also denied Davis's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its January 26, 1999 and May 6, 1999 orders.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-10-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6735

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Michael Troy Davis's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Davis's motion. The appellate court also denied Davis's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its January 26, 1999 and May 6, 1999 orders.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views2 pages

    United States v. Michael Troy Davis, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Michael Troy Davis's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The appellate court reviewed the district court record and found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Davis's motion. The appellate court also denied Davis's request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its January 26, 1999 and May 6, 1999 orders.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-6735

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MICHAEL TROY DAVIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-95-313, CA-98-275-1)

    Submitted:

    September 30, 1999

    Decided:

    October 7, 1999

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Michael Troy Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Troy Davis seeks to appeal the district courts orders
    denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 1999)
    and his motion for reconsideration.

    We have reviewed the record

    and the district courts opinion accepting the recommendation of


    the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the
    reasoning of the district court.

    See United States v. Davis, Nos.

    CR-95-313; CA-98-275-1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 1999, and May 6, 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

    You might also like