Filed: Aug. 05, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-2455 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD ANTHONY WILFORD, Claimant - Appellant, and $42,304.00 IN U. S. CURRENCY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-932-JFM) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 5, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-2455 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD ANTHONY WILFORD, Claimant - Appellant, and $42,304.00 IN U. S. CURRENCY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-932-JFM) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 5, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 94-2455
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RICHARD ANTHONY WILFORD,
Claimant - Appellant,
and
$42,304.00 IN U. S. CURRENCY,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-94-932-JFM)
Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 5, 1996
Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Anthony Wilford, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting the
government's summary judgment motion and from the court's final
decree of forfeiture. We have reviewed the record and the district
court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm. See United States v. Ursery, ___ U.S. ___,
64 U.S.L.W. 4565
(U.S. June 24, 1996) (Nos. 95-345, 95-346). 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
3