Filed: Nov. 12, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6895 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMAL MITCHELL, a/k/a Boo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-02-25) Submitted: October 18, 2004 Decided: November 12, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamal Mitchell,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6895 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMAL MITCHELL, a/k/a Boo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-02-25) Submitted: October 18, 2004 Decided: November 12, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamal Mitchell, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6895 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMAL MITCHELL, a/k/a Boo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-02-25) Submitted: October 18, 2004 Decided: November 12, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamal Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jamal Mitchell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for return of real property. 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. Mitchell, No. CR-02-25 (E.D. Va. filed May 5, 2004 & entered May 6, 2004). We deny Mitchell’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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 -
