Filed: Jul. 23, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6536 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALD BURNELL BASSETT, a/k/a Ronnie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. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6536 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALD BURNELL BASSETT, a/k/a Ronnie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. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6536 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALD BURNELL BASSETT, a/k/a Ronnie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. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR- 85-541-S) Submitted: June 28, 1996 Decided: July 23, 1996 Before ERVIN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Burnell Bassett, Appellant Pro Se. Harvey Ellis Eisenberg, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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 2