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: 2009-04-30
Citations: 324 F. App'x 264
Docket Number: No. 08-7944
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamal MITCHELL, a/k/a Boo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 264–265

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamal MITCHELL, a/k/a Boo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-7944.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 23, 2009.
Decided: April 30, 2009.
Jamal Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 the return of property, pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 41(g). We review the denial of a Rule 41(g) motion for return of property for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambers, 192 F.3d 374, 376 (3d Cir.1999). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny Mitchell's motion for substantive relief and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Mitchell, No. 1:02-cr-00025-JCC-1, 2008 WL 3914883 (E.D.Va. Aug. 20, 2008). 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.