Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. $890,718.00, 06-1747 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-1747 Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 06, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1747 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus $890,718.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, Defendant, versus CLAYTON WILLIS, Claimant - Appellant, and TAMMY HARRELL, Claimant. No. 06-1748 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PROPERTY, 475 COTTAGE DR, MOUNT AIRY, SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant, versus CLAYTON WILLIS, Claimant - Appellant, and CAROL MIDKIFF MILLS, Claimant. Appeals from the United S
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1747 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus $890,718.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, Defendant, versus CLAYTON WILLIS, Claimant - Appellant, and TAMMY HARRELL, Claimant. No. 06-1748 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PROPERTY, 475 COTTAGE DR, MOUNT AIRY, SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant, versus CLAYTON WILLIS, Claimant - Appellant, and CAROL MIDKIFF MILLS, Claimant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (1:03-cv-00263-JAB; 1:02-cv-00898-JAB) Submitted: January 8, 2007 Decided: February 6, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clayton Willis, Appellant Pro Se. Gill Paul Beck, Lynne P. Klauer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Clayton Willis appeals the district court’s orders forfeiting real property and currency to the Government. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Willis, Nos. 1:03-cv-00263-JAB; 1:02-cv-00898-JAB (M.D.N.C. filed May 25, 2006 & entered May 26, 2006). We deny Willis’ requests for appointment of counsel.* 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 * Although Willis asserts he has had no response to his request to proceed on appeal without payment of fees, we observe that the district court previously accorded Willis in forma pauperis status, and these appeals have proceeded on that basis. - 3 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer