US v. William Scott Davis, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999864767-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999807010-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999780674-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999762594-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999864811-2] in 16-4041; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999851727-2]; denying Motion to consolidate case (Local Rule 12(b)) [999808229-2], denying Motion to consolidate case (Local Rule 12(b)) [999807010-3] Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00240-BR-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999882420]. Mailed to: Davis. [16-4033, 16-4041, 16-4042]

Appeal: 16-4033

Doc: 34

Filed: 07/08/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4033

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-4041

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-4042

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.

Appeal: 16-4033

Doc: 34

Filed: 07/08/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

WILLIAM SCOTT DAVIS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:14-cr-00240-BR-1)

Submitted:

June 21, 2016

Decided:

July 8, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Ethan A. Ontjes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-4033

Doc: 34

Filed: 07/08/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, William Scott Davis, Jr.,
seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s pretrial detention order,
the

district

court’s

oral

order

denying

33

motions,

and

the

district court’s written order denying 38 other motions in his
pending criminal matter.

This Court may exercise jurisdiction

only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).

This Court has jurisdiction only

over Davis’ appeal from the district court’s order denying his
pro se motion to vacate the magistrate judge’s detention order.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) (2012).

All other orders Davis seeks to

appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or
collateral orders.

Accordingly, we dismiss Davis’ appeals of

these orders for lack of jurisdiction.
Turning to the district court’s denial of Davis’ motion to
vacate,

we

Appellant’s

confine

our

brief.

review

See

4th

to

Cir.

the
R.

issues
34(b).

raised

in

Because

the

Davis’

informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
court’s denial
Davis

has

of

his

forfeited

motion

to

appellate

vacate

review

of

the

detention

that

denial.

order,
See

Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir.

3

Appeal: 16-4033

2004).

Doc: 34

Filed: 07/08/2016

Accordingly,

we

Pg: 4 of 4

affirm

the

district

court’s

order

denying Davis’ motion to vacate the detention order.
We deny Davis’ motions to consolidate additional appeals,
to appoint counsel, and for transcript at government expense.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4