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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2498 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILTON FELIPE BELTRE, Claimant -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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2498 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILTON FELIPE BELTRE, Claimant -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. Aff..
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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