United States of America v. Kevin O’neill

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6899
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEVIN O’NEILL,
Movant – Appellant,
JACK ROSGA; JOSEPH ALLMAN; JOHN BANTHEM, a/k/a Bull; THOMAS
BENVIE, a/k/a Taz; WILLIAM DAVEY, a/k/a Rebel; MARK JASON
FIEL, a/k/a Jason; MARK STEVEN FIEL, a/k/a Snuff; CHRIS
GAGNER; HAROLD HERNDON, a/k/a Lil Dave; MARK LESTER, a/k/a
Ivan; BRETT LONGENDYKE; DAVID LOWRY, a/k/a Little David;
MICHAEL MARIACA, a/k/a M&M; THOMAS MAYNE, a/k/a Tomcat;
HARRY RHYNE MCCALL; BRIAN MCDERMOTT; MICHAEL PEDINI, a/k/a
Madman; THOMAS PETRINI, a/k/a Jo-Jo; MICHAEL SMITH; MARK
SPRADLING, a/k/a Lytnin; CHRISTOPHER TIMBERS, a/k/a Alibi;
JAMIE TOWNSEND, a/k/a Vern; LESLIE WERTH, a/k/a Les;
CHARLES LOVE, a/k/a Chuck, a/k/a Rebar; WILLIAM POWELL,
a/k/a Torch; CHARLES BARLOW, a/k/a Chuck; DENNIS
HALDERMANN, a/k/a Chew Chew,
Defendants,
HARLEY DAVIDSON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED,
Claimant,
KRISTEN LUSK,
Party-in-Interest.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:10-cr-00170-HEH)
Submitted: November 7, 2011 Decided: November 18, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin O’Neill, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Gurney
Wingate Grant, II, Laura Colombell Marshall, Stephen Wiley
Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Theryn G. Gibbons,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia; Dennis
Michael Fitzpatrick, Philip Samuel Kaplan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Kevin O’Neill appeals the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) motion for return of seized
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. O’Neill, No. 3:10-cr-00170-HEH
(E.D. Va. June 27, 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

-- 3 of 3 --