The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
25-4112•United States of America v. Tres Avery Davis
25-4112Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 19, 2026
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-4112
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TRES AVERY DAVIS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (2:23-cr-00031-15)
Submitted: May 14, 2026 Decided: August 19, 2026
Before AGEE, THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Stephen J. van Stempvoort, MILLER JOHNSON, Grand Rapids, Michigan,
for Appellant. Lisa G. Johnston, Acting United States Attorney, Jeremy B. Wolfe,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Tres Avery Davis pleaded guilty to distribution of 40 grams or more of a mixture
and substance containing a detectable amount of fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1). His written plea agreement preserved his right to appeal the district court’s
denial of his motion to suppress his confession.
On appeal, Davis asserts that the district court erred by denying his motion to
suppress his confession because his statements were made involuntarily after questioning
officers promised him leniency in exchange for information. We have reviewed the record
and the briefs filed by the parties and find that the district court committed no reversible
error. We therefore affirm both the denial of Davis’ motion to suppress and his ensuing
convictions.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.