Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamal MITCHELL, a/k/a Boo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-02
Citations: 441 F. App'x 975
Docket Number: No. 11-6461
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamal MITCHELL, a/k/a Boo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 975–975

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamal MITCHELL, a/k/a Boo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-6461.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 28, 2011.
Decided: Aug. 2, 2011.
Jamal Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamal Mitchell appeals the district court's order denying his motion for return of property, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambers, 192 F.3d 374, 376 (3d Cir.1999). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Mitchell, No. 1:02-cr-00025-JCC-1 (E.D.Va. Feb. 7, 2011). 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.