Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Goodman, 03-6216 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-6216 Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 25, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6216 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL ANTONIO GOODMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-1-BO) Submitted: August 27, 2003 Decided: September 25, 2003 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6216 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL ANTONIO GOODMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-1-BO) Submitted: August 27, 2003 Decided: September 25, 2003 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Antonio Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Michael Antonio Goodman appeals the district court’s order denying his motion fo return of property. Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e). We have reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the district court’s reasoning. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Goodman, No. CR-92-1-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 25, 2002). 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