United States v. Williams
96 F. App'x 162
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 6, 2004·No. No. 04-6267·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
Charles Williams appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for return of property filed pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 41. 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. Williams, No. CR-00-8 (E.D.Va. Dec. 22, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are [163]*163adequately 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
United States v. Williams, 96 F. App'x 162 (4th Cir. 2004).
96 F. App'x 162 (United States v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Williams v. United States
543 U.S. 949 (Supreme Court, 2004)