Filed: Dec. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7134 RENAULT WATKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cv-03838-WDQ) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Renault Watkins, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7134 RENAULT WATKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cv-03838-WDQ) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Renault Watkins, Appellant Pro ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7134 RENAULT WATKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cv-03838-WDQ) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Renault Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Lee Andrew Flagg, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Renault Watkins appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for the return of property pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Watkins v. United States, No. 1:13-cv- 03838-WDQ (D. Md. July 21, 2014). 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
