Filed: May 05, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-8027 ITZHAK SHALOM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-311-BEL) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 5, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Itzhak Shalom, Appellant Pro Se. Barbar
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-8027 ITZHAK SHALOM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-311-BEL) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 5, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Itzhak Shalom, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-8027 ITZHAK SHALOM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-311-BEL) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 5, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Itzhak Shalom, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Slaymaker Sale, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Itzhak Shalom appeals from the district court’s order denying in part and granting in part his Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) motion for the return of seized property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Shalom v. United States, No. CA-04-311-BEL (D. Md. Nov. 8, 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 - 2 -
