Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Nelson, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    Cleveland Nelson appealed the district court's denial of his motion for the return of property that was seized. The appeals court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's ruling. It found no error because Nelson had been notified of the contested forfeiture of the property in 1995, more than 6 years before he filed the motion in 2001, exceeding the statute of limitations. The appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for return of property and denial of the motion for reconsideration.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-02-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7337

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Cleveland Nelson appealed the district court's denial of his motion for the return of property that was seized. The appeals court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's ruling. It found no error because Nelson had been notified of the contested forfeiture of the property in 1995, more than 6 years before he filed the motion in 2001, exceeding the statute of limitations. The appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for return of property and denial of the motion for reconsideration.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views2 pages

    United States v. Nelson, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Cleveland Nelson appealed the district court's denial of his motion for the return of property that was seized. The appeals court reviewed the record and affirmed the district court's ruling. It found no error because Nelson had been notified of the contested forfeiture of the property in 1995, more than 6 years before he filed the motion in 2001, exceeding the statute of limitations. The appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for return of property and denial of the motion for reconsideration.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-7337

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CLEVELAND NELSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard,
    District Judge. (CR-94-57)

    Submitted:

    January 28, 2004

    Decided:

    February 26, 2004

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Cleveland Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant


    United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Cleveland Nelson appeals the district courts orders
    denying relief on Nelsons Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) motion for return
    of property and denying his motion for reconsideration. See United
    States v. Nelson, No. CR-94-57 (E.D.N.C. June 24, 2003; Aug. 18,
    2003).

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error

    because Nelson had notice of the contested forfeiture no later than


    April 1995, more than six years before he filed the Rule 41(e)
    motion.

    See 28 U.S.C.

    2401(a) (2000); United States v. Minor,

    228 F.3d 352, 359 (4th Cir. 2000).

    Accordingly, we affirm.

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like