Court Opinion

ID: 9391087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-29 21:00:22.948628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.399933
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7399      Doc: 20         Filed: 04/28/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7399

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:14-cr-00240-D-1; 5:22-cv-00233-D)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                         Decided: April 28, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7399      Doc: 20         Filed: 04/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order striking several motions

        from the docket. 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. 5:14-cr-

        00240-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 14, 2022).          We deny a certificate of appealability as

        unnecessary, see Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009), and deny Davis’ motions for

        a new trial and for reassignment to a different district judge. We dispense with oral

        argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

        before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                       AFFIRMED

                                                     2