Court Opinion

ID: 9397299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 21:01:49.056242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:23.240943
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7459      Doc: 21         Filed: 05/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7459

        BENJAMIN FAULKNER,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-00073-JAG)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                           Decided: May 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Benjamin Faulkner, Appellant Pro Se. Jin Ah Lee, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7459      Doc: 21        Filed: 05/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Benjamin Faulkner appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for return

        of property under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g). We have reviewed the record and find no

        reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Faulkner v. United

        States, No. 3:22-cv-00073-JAG (E.D. Va. Oct. 3, 2022). We deny Faulkner’s motion to

        reconsider the order denying his motion for an extension of time to file a supplemental

        informal opening brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

        contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

        not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                    2