Filed: Nov. 29, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6815 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICIA ANN SAVVA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-02-280-2) Submitted: November 15, 2004 Decided: November 29, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6815 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICIA ANN SAVVA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-02-280-2) Submitted: November 15, 2004 Decided: November 29, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6815 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICIA ANN SAVVA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-02-280-2) Submitted: November 15, 2004 Decided: November 29, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patricia Ann Savva, Appellant Pro Se. Peter W. Kellen, Special Agent, Frank DeArmon Whitney, United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Patricia Ann Savva appeals the district court’s order denying her post-conviction motion for return of property under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Savva, No. CR-02-280-2 (E.D.N.C. April 13, 2004). 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
