Filed: Jul. 31, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6223 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EMMANUEL IKECHUKWU ANUDU, a/k/a Cletis, a/k/a Claytus, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-305-HAR) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6223 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EMMANUEL IKECHUKWU ANUDU, a/k/a Cletis, a/k/a Claytus, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-305-HAR) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6223 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EMMANUEL IKECHUKWU ANUDU, a/k/a Cletis, a/k/a Claytus, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-305-HAR) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emmanuel Ikechukwu Anudu, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Crim. 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. Anudu, No. CR-91-305-HAR (D. Md. Nov. 21, 1995). 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
