United States v. Rome
This text of United States v. Rome (United States v. Rome) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7904
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CARLOS ROME,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-00-33-4)
Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 14, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carlos Rome, Appellant Pro Se. C. J. Moore, Cherry Point, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Carlos Rome appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion for return of property, specifically $6245 in U.S. currency.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See United States v. Rome, No. CR-00-33-4 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 2,
2002). 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Rome, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rome-ca4-2003.