Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Antonio GOODMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-25
Citations: 75 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: No. 03-6216
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Antonio GOODMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 75
Pages: 208–209

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Antonio GOODMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6216.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 27, 2003.
Decided Sept. 25, 2003.
Michael Antonio Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael Antonio Goodman appeals the district court's order denying his motion fo return of property. Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e). We have reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the district court's reasoning. 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. Goodman, No. CR-92-1-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 25, 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.