Filed: Dec. 24, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7425 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN DONEWAN CARR, a/k/a Steven D. Carr, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:98-cr-00246-RLV-2) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7425 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN DONEWAN CARR, a/k/a Steven D. Carr, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:98-cr-00246-RLV-2) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7425 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEVEN DONEWAN CARR, a/k/a Steven D. Carr, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:98-cr-00246-RLV-2) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Donewan Carr, Appellant Pro Se. William A. Brafford, Douglas Scott Broyles, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven Donewan Carr appeals the district court’s order deny his motions for the return of property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Carr, No. 5:98-cr-00246-RLV-2 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 26, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
