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)
11-7114•United States of America v. Dwayne Manning, a/k/a Jonathan Manning, a/k/a Rude Dog
11-7114Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 13, 2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7114
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DWAYNE MANNING, a/k/a Jonathan Manning, a/k/a Rude Dog,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:95-cr-00156-H-1)
Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwayne Manning, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Manning appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for return of property. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Manning, No. 5:95-cr-00156-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 10, 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.