Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Katherine Hoover, 12-2443 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-2443 Visitors: 12
Filed: Aug. 26, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2443 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KATHERINE ANNE HOOVER; JOHN F. TOMASIC, No pending federal criminal charges, Claimants - Appellants, and $88,029.08, MORE OR LESS, IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY; $27,671.50, MORE OR LESS, IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Defendants, and MARGARET E. LUPHER; DIANE E. SHAFER, M.D., Claimants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, a
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2443 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KATHERINE ANNE HOOVER; JOHN F. TOMASIC, No pending federal criminal charges, Claimants - Appellants, and $88,029.08, MORE OR LESS, IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY; $27,671.50, MORE OR LESS, IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Defendants, and MARGARET E. LUPHER; DIANE E. SHAFER, M.D., Claimants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:10-cv-01087) Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: August 26, 2013 Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Katherine Anne Hoover and John F. Tomasic, Appellants Pro Se. Fred B. Westfall, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Betty Adkins Pullin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Katherine Anne Hoover and John F. Tomasic appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendations and entering judgment in favor of the Government in these civil forfeiture proceedings. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. $88,029.08, No. 2:10-cv-01087 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 28, 2012). We further deny Appellants’ motion to submit newly discovered information and their request for oral argument. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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