United States v. Donoho

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1548
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PATRICIA DONOHO; BONNIE CANAVAN,
Claimants - Appellants,
and
FRANCIS LEE, a/k/a Le Tuyen Dinh,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge.
(CR-01-232-S)
Submitted: October 21, 2002 Decided: October 31, 2002
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patricia Donoho, Bonnie Canavan, Appellants Pro Se. Stephen
Matthew Schenning, United States Attorney, Martin Joseph Clarke,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Patricia Donoho and Bonnie Canavan appeal the district court’s
order denying their motion for return of forfeited and seized
property. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
opinion and find no reversible error.* Accordingly, we affirm on
the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Donoho,
No. CR-01-232-S (D. Md. Apr. 19 & 24, 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
*
Although this appeal was interlocutory when filed, we have
jurisdiction because the district court entered a final order prior
to our consideration of the appeal. See Equipment Finance Group,
Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir.
1992).
2