The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-4571•United States of America v. Mark L. Simons
00-4571Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 19, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-4571
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARK L. SIMONS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-98-375)
Submitted: January 31, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001
Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marvin D. Miller, LAW OFFICES OF MARVIN D. MILLER, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney,
G. David Hackney, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
This case is before us on appeal of the district court’s deci-
sion on remand as to whether government agents intentionally and
deliberately disregarded the notice provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P.
41(d) such that the motion to suppress filed by Mark L. Simons
should be granted. See United States v. Simons, 206 F.3d 392 (4th
Cir. 2000). On remand, the district court heard evidence and had
the opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses as to
the pertinent issue. The district court concluded that the gov-
ernment’s violation of Rule 41(d) in this case was, at most,
negligent.
We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s decision. 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.