Filed: Jan. 28, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7557 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CURTIS BERNARD MINOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-91-201, CA-96-394-6) Submitted: January 2, 2002 Decided: January 28, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7557 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CURTIS BERNARD MINOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-91-201, CA-96-394-6) Submitted: January 2, 2002 Decided: January 28, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7557 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CURTIS BERNARD MINOR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-91-201, CA-96-394-6) Submitted: January 2, 2002 Decided: January 28, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Bernard Minor, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Curtis Bernard Minor appeals from the district court’s order finding his motion for return of property barred by the statute of limitations. 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. Minor, Nos. CR-91-201; CA-96-394-6 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 13, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
