United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 13, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-51594
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TONY DAVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:96-CR-190-1
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tony Davis, former federal prisoner # 68917-080**, was
convicted on eight counts of conspiracy, wire fraud, travel and
transportation of securities for fraudulent purposes, and money
laundering. See United States v. Davis, 226 F.3d 346, 348 (5th
Cir. 2000). The district court sentenced Davis to 60 months of
imprisonment on the conspiracy and wire fraud counts and 97 months
of imprisonment on the remaining five counts, to run concurrently.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
**
Davis was released from prison on August 13, 2004.
However, he is still serving his 36-month term of supervised
release.
No. 05-51594
-2-
The district court also ordered Davis to pay restitution in the
amount of $3,609,937.79. This court affirmed Davis’s conviction
and sentence. Id. at 349, 360. Davis now appeals the district
court’s orders denying miscellaneous motions (docket entry 519) and
amending the conditions of Davis’s supervised release by increasing
his monthly restitution payments from $100 to $300 (docket entry
500).
Davis does not address, in the context of the instant appeal,
the district court’s statement in docket entry 519 that all of the
issues raised in his motions were addressed in previous orders.
Accordingly, Davis’s appeal of docket entry 519 is dismissed for
failure to adequately brief. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,
224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Davis’s argument that exculpatory evidence
and records were concealed from him during discovery is similarly
inadequately briefed. Any purported appeal on this issue is
dismissed. See id.
Davis’s appeal from the district court’s order amending the
conditions of supervision by increasing his monthly restitution
payments from $100 to $300 (docket entry 500) is moot. The
district court subsequently entered an order again modifying
Davis’s conditions of supervision by increasing his monthly
restitution payments from $300 to $600. Davis explicitly agreed to
the modification. Thus, he is no longer bound by the order he
seeks to appeal. See United States v. Hunt, 940 F.2d 130, 131-32
(5th Cir. 1991).
No. 05-51594
-3-
Davis’s motion to hear his appeal on an expedited basis and
his motion for judicial notice are denied. All other outstanding
motions are hereby denied.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED.