Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Risper, 99-7715 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-7715 Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 20, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7715 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RODNEY EARL RISPER, a/k/a Menace, a/k/a Rodney Risper, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-97-134-BR) Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 20, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. A
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7715 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RODNEY EARL RISPER, a/k/a Menace, a/k/a Rodney Risper, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CR-97-134-BR) Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 20, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney Earl Risper, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Aubrey West, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rodney Risper appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Risper sought the return of $5000 seized when he was arrested.* 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. See United States v. Risper, No. CR-97-134-BR (E.D.N.C. Nov. 19, 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 * The district court also denied Risper’s request for the return of a firearm and an address book. He has waived any challenge to the court’s denial as to those two items because he did not address those items in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 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