Case ID: f-appx_478/html/0769-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damian Antonio MURPHY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-7132.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 11, 2012.
    Decided: Sept. 14, 2012.
    Damian Antonio Murphy, Appellant Pro Se.
    Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
    
      Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Damian Antonio Murphy appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for the 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. United States v. Murphy, No. 1:06-cr-00062-JPJ-1 (W.D.Va. June 11, 2012). 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.