Narrative Opinion Summary
Robert H. Davis appeals the district court's dismissal of his action to correct his presentence investigation report under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2) (2006), as well as the denial of his motion for reconsideration of that dismissal. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, leading to the affirmation of the district court's orders. This case is referenced as Davis v. United States, No. 8:09-cv-01720-PJM (D. Md. July 10, 2009; filed July 29, 2009; entered July 30, 2009). Oral argument was deemed unnecessary as the pertinent facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the available materials. The affirmation stands without establishing binding precedent due to the unpublished nature of the opinion.
Legal Issues Addressed
Oral Argument Necessitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were adequately covered in the submitted documents.
Reasoning: Oral argument was deemed unnecessary as the pertinent facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the available materials.
Privacy Act Correction Requestssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court addressed Davis's request to correct his presentence investigation report under the Privacy Act, affirming the district court's dismissal of his action.
Reasoning: Robert H. Davis appeals the district court's dismissal of his action to correct his presentence investigation report under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2) (2006), as well as the denial of his motion for reconsideration of that dismissal.
Standard of Review for Reversible Errorsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Upon review, the appellate court found no reversible error in the district court's decision, thereby affirming the orders without changes.
Reasoning: The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, leading to the affirmation of the district court's orders.
Unpublished Opinions and Precedential Valuesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision in this case does not establish a binding precedent due to its unpublished status.
Reasoning: The affirmation stands without establishing binding precedent due to the unpublished nature of the opinion.