United States of America v. Charles E. Louther, Jr.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2244
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHARLES E. LOUTHER, JR.,
Claimant – Appellant,
and
CURRENCY, $41,939.00 IN U.S.; 2001 ACURA CL, VIN
19UYA42611A022790,
Defendants,
SHAKITA LOUTHER; CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE, INC.,
Claimants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00164-NCT-PTS)
Submitted: August 21, 2012 Decided: August 27, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Charles E. Louther, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lynne P. Klauer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Charles E. Louther, Jr., appeals the district court’s
orders granting the United States’ motion to strike his answer
and claim to seized money for lack of standing and denying leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. We initially
affirmed the district court’s denial of IFP status and dismissed
Louther’s appeal of the court’s order granting the motion to
strike for lack of jurisdiction. We now grant Louther’s
petition for rehearing.
We confine our review to the issues raised in the
Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Louther’s
informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
court’s denial of IFP status, we affirm the court’s order.
Turning to the district court’s order granting the United
States’ motion to strike, we have reviewed the order and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Currency, $41,939.00 in
U.S., No. 1:09-cv-00164-NCT-PTS (M.D.N.C. Sept. 6, 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 --