Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Castro, 09-7788 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-7788 Visitors: 24
Filed: Feb. 18, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7788 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JUAN EVANGELISTA CASTRO, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00054-sgw-mfu-1) Submitted: January 27, 2010 Decided: February 18, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juan Evange
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7788 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JUAN EVANGELISTA CASTRO, Defendant – Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00054-sgw-mfu-1) Submitted: January 27, 2010 Decided: February 18, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juan Evangelista Castro, Appellant Pro Se. Ryan Lee Souders, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Juan Evangelista Castro appeals from the district court’s garnishment disposition order directing the Virginia State Police to pay the Government $9,849. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Castro, No. 5:06-cr-00054-sgw-mfu-1 (W.D. Va. Sept. 9, 2009). 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 Castro appears to correctly assert that the garnishee improperly failed to serve him with its answer to the garnishment writ, Castro fails to explain on appeal the objections he would have raised to the answer had he been served. Because Castro fails to show prejudice, we conclude that the irregularity in the processing of the garnishment action was harmless. 2
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