Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

93-2452 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-2452 Visitors: 4
Filed: Apr. 21, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 21 F.3d 426 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff Appellee, v. Michael R. JACKSON, Claimant Appellant, and REAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS 2603 MERLE STREET IN THE COUNTY OF HENRICO, VIRGINIA, Titled to Michael R. Jackson, Defendant, v.
More

21 F.3d 426
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
Michael R. JACKSON, Claimant Appellant,
and
REAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS 2603 MERLE STREET IN
THE COUNTY OF HENRICO, VIRGINIA, Titled to Michael
R. Jackson, Defendant,
v.
COUNTRYWIDE FUNDING CORPORATION, Claimant.

No. 93-2452.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 8, 1994.
Decided: April 21, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond; Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-93-344)

Michael R. Jackson, appellant pro se.

Gurney Wingate Grant, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, VA, for Appellee.

Dewey Blanton Morris, Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Va, for claimant.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment for the Government and ordering the forfeiture of Appellant's property. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Jackson, No. CA-93-344 (E.D. Va. Oct. 13, 1993). We deny Appellant's Motion to Delay. 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

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