Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

96-6536 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6536 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jul. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 92 F.3d 1182 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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. Ronald Burnell BASSETT, a/k/a Ronnie Bump, a/k/a The Kid, a/k/a Zachary Jackson, a/k/a Ronald Jackson, a/k/a Beamon Jackson, a/k/a Ronald Jones, a/k/a R.F. Jones, a/k/a Beamon
More

92 F.3d 1182

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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.
Ronald Burnell BASSETT, a/k/a Ronnie Bump, a/k/a The Kid,
a/k/a Zachary Jackson, a/k/a Ronald Jackson, a/k/a Beamon
Jackson, a/k/a Ronald Jones, a/k/a R.F. Jones, a/k/a Beamon
West, a/k/a Harry Vandyke, a/k/a The Bird, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-6536.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 28, 1996.
Decided: July 23, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR-85-541-S)

Ronald Burnell Bassett, Appellant Pro Se. Harvey Ellis Eisenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(e) motion for return of property. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Bassett, No. CR-85-541-S (D.Md. Feb. 13, 1996). 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

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