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)
11-6461•United States of America v. Jamal Mitchell, a/k/a Boo
11-6461Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 2, 2011
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6461
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMAL MITCHELL, a/k/a Boo,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:02-cr-00025-JCC-1)
Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 2, 2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamal Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Jamal Mitchell appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for return of property, pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 41(g). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse
of discretion. United States v. Chambers, 192 F.3d 374, 376 (3d
Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. See United States v. Mitchell, No. 1:02-cr-
00025-JCC-1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 7, 2011). 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.