Filed: Aug. 03, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6578 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EARNEST HAYNESWORTH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-00-52) Submitted: July 19, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004 Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6578 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EARNEST HAYNESWORTH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-00-52) Submitted: July 19, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004 Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6578 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EARNEST HAYNESWORTH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-00-52) Submitted: July 19, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004 Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earnest Haynesworth, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Richard Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Earnest Haynesworth appeals the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) motion for return of property and motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Haynesworth, No. CR- 00-52 (E.D. Va. Feb. 11, 2004). 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 -
