United States v. Randy Potts, Party in Interest and One 1981 Mercedes Benz, Vin Wdbba45a4bb009109

23 F.3d 404, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 18593, 1994 WL 168295
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 4, 1994
Docket93-2368
StatusPublished

This text of 23 F.3d 404 (United States v. Randy Potts, Party in Interest and One 1981 Mercedes Benz, Vin Wdbba45a4bb009109) 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. Randy Potts, Party in Interest and One 1981 Mercedes Benz, Vin Wdbba45a4bb009109, 23 F.3d 404, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 18593, 1994 WL 168295 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

23 F.3d 404
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff Appellee,
v.
Randy POTTS, Party in Interest Appellant,
and
One 1981 Mercedes Benz, VIN WDBBA45A4BB009109, Defendant.

No. 93-2368.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 21, 1994.
Decided May 4, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, District Judge. (CA-93-173-P-3)

Randy Potts, appellant pro se.

Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., Office of the U.S. Atty., Charlotte, NC, for appellee.

W.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting default judgment of forfeiture. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Potts No. CA-93-173-P-3 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 9, 1993). 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.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 F.3d 404, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 18593, 1994 WL 168295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-randy-potts-party-in-interest-and--ca4-1994.