United States v. Beverly

365 F. App'x 462
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 16, 2010
Docket09-7094
StatusUnpublished

This text of 365 F. App'x 462 (United States v. Beverly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Beverly, 365 F. App'x 462 (4th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth D. Beverly appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his motion for return of property for failure to pay the initial partial filing fee. In the only claim raised bn appeal, Beverly asserts that his motion was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) and, thus, not subject to a filing fee. A review of the record discloses that Beverly’s motion did not reference § 2255. Moreover, a motion for return of property is a civil action subject to a filing fee. See United States v. Garcia, 65 F.3d 17, 18 n. 2 (4th Cir.1995); United States v. Howell, 354 F.3d 693, 695 (7th Cir.2004). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny Beverly’s motions to place the case in abeyance. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Daniel Garcia
65 F.3d 17 (Fourth Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Robert Nelson Howell
354 F.3d 693 (Seventh Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
365 F. App'x 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-beverly-ca4-2010.