United States v. DeBlasio

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-7376
KEITH WILLIAM DEBLASIO,
Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-7377
KEITH WILLIAM DEBLASIO,
Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-7831
KEITH WILLIAM DEBLASIO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CR-94-397-JFM, CA-96-1406-JFM, CA-96-2793-JFM)
Submitted: February 28, 1997
Decided: March 21, 1997
Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON,
Circuit Judges.
No. 96-7377 affirmed and Nos. 96-7376 and 96-7831 dismissed by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Keith William DeBlasio, Appellant Pro Se. Ira Lee Oring, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Keith W. DeBlasio appeals from the district court's orders dismiss-
ing two motions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), as amended
by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.
No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217 1 and a motion for return of property
brought under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e). 2 We affirm No. 96-7377 and
dismiss No. 96-7376 and No. 96-7831.
Addressing DeBlasio's Rule 41(e) motion, we find that, even
assuming a remedy following the government's disposal of his prop-
erty, DeBlasio has not demonstrated any entitlement to damages.
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of his motion.
Addressing DeBlasio's § 2255 motions we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court.
United
States v. DeBlasio, Nos. CR-94-397-JFM; CA-96-1406-JFM;
CA-96-2793-JFM (D. Md. July 19, 1996, Oct. 24, 1996). We note
_________________________________________________________________
1 No. 96-7376 and No. 96-7831.
2 No. 96-7377.
2
that although the district court failed to address one claim in
DeBla-
sio's first motion the claim would not entitle to him relief.
Further,
the court did consider this claim in DeBlasio's second motion and
he
was therefore not harmed by the court's oversight. 3
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
No. 96-7377-AFFIRMED
Nos. 96-7376/7831-DISMISSED
_________________________________________________________________
3 We also deny DeBlasio's motion for appointment of counsel in No.
96-7376 and his motions for stay in both No. 96-7376 and 96-7831.
3