Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Charles Harris Brown, 99-2640 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-2640 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jun. 20, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2640 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES HARRIS BROWN, JR.; ERIC D. BELLSEY, Claimants - Appellants, and $15,000.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY; $1,341.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-2861-6) Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 20, 2000 Before NIE
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2640 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES HARRIS BROWN, JR.; ERIC D. BELLSEY, Claimants - Appellants, and $15,000.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY; $1,341.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-2861-6) Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 20, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William G. Yarborough, III, ASHMORE & YARBOROUGH, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellants. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Anne Hunter Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Marvin J. Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Harris Brown, Jr., and Eric D. Bellsey appeal the dis- trict court’s order denying their motion for return of property under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis- trate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Brown, No. CA-99-2861-6 (D.S.C. Nov. 22, 1999). 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
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