United States v. O'neill

Fourth Circuit

United States v. O'neill

454 F. App'x 216

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided November 18, 2011·No. No. 11-6899·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Kevin O’Neill appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g) motion for return of seized property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. [217]*217United States v. O’Neill, No. 3:10-cr-00170-HEH (E.D. Va. June 27, 2011). 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

PER CURIAM:

Kevin O’Neill appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g) motion for return of seized property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. [217]*217United States v. O’Neill, No. 3:10-cr-00170-HEH (E.D. Va. June 27, 2011). 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.

United States v. O'neill, 454 F. App'x 216 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

454 F. App'x 216 (United States v. O'neill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related