United States v. O'neill

Fourth Circuit

United States v. O'neill

454 F. App'x 216

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 18, 2011

DocketNo. 11-6899

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

454 F. App'x 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-oneill-ca4-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack