Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Beltre, 99-2498 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-2498 Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 29, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2498 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILTON FELIPE BELTRE, Claimant - Appellant, and ONE 1991 INFINITI Q-45, VIN #JNKNG01C7MM105366, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-925-BR) Submitted: March 23, 2000 Decided: March 29, 2000 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Af
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 99-2498



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


WILTON FELIPE BELTRE,

                                               Claimant - Appellant,

          and


ONE 1991 INFINITI Q-45, VIN #JNKNG01C7MM105366,

                                                           Defendant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CA-98-925-BR)


Submitted:   March 23, 2000                 Decided:   March 29, 2000


Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Wilton Felipe Beltre, Appellant Pro Se.   Stephen Aubrey West,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).




PER CURIAM:

     Wilton Beltre appeals the district court’s order denying his

motion for reconsideration.*     We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and order and find no reversible error.

See Williams, 674 F.2d at 312.    We dispense with oral argument be-

cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.




                                                            AFFIRMED




     *
       While styled as a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e),
this motion is properly construed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b). See United States v. Williams, 
674 F.2d 310
, 312 (4th Cir.
1982).


                                   2

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