Filed: Apr. 27, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6050 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ORLANDO DUNCAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-02-86) Submitted: April 14, 2004 Decided: April 27, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orlando Duncan, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6050 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ORLANDO DUNCAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-02-86) Submitted: April 14, 2004 Decided: April 27, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orlando Duncan, Appellant Pro ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6050 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ORLANDO DUNCAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-02-86) Submitted: April 14, 2004 Decided: April 27, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orlando Duncan, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Orlando Duncan appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for return of property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Duncan, No. CR-02-86 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 30, 2003). 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 -
