Filed: Jun. 19, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6627 CHARLES ANTON MCKAIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-02-474-B) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Anton McKain, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6627 CHARLES ANTON MCKAIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-02-474-B) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Anton McKain, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6627 CHARLES ANTON MCKAIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-02-474-B) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Anton McKain, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Anton McKain appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for the return of property and the marginal order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McKain v. United States, No. CA-02-474-B (D. Md. Mar. 22 & Apr. 2, 2002). 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
