US v. Dave Taylor


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000060634-2] Originating case number: 3:99-cr-00145-REP-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000133654]. Mailed to: Dave Taylor. [17-6388]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6388 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/09/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6388 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVE ANDRAE TAYLOR, a/k/a Indian, a/k/a Nicholas, a/k/a Spike, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-00145-REP-2) Submitted: July 18, 2017 Decided: August 9, 2017 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dave Andrae Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Katherine Lee Martin, Robert E. Trono, Assistant United States Attorneys, Heather Hart Mansfield, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia; Michael Arlen Jagels, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6388 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/09/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Dave Andrae Taylor appeals the district court’s order construing his second motion to reduce sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Guidelines as a motion to reconsider and denying it for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Taylor, No. 3:99-cr-00145-REP-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2017). We deny Taylor’s motion to appoint counsel and 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?