Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    Alejandro Martinez-Mata v. United States, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Alejandro Martinez-Mata's motion for the return of property under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Alejandro Martinez-Mata v. United States, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    17 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Alejandro Martinez-Mata's motion for the return of property under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-12-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-6770

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Alejandro Martinez-Mata's motion for the return of property under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    17 views2 pages

    Alejandro Martinez-Mata v. United States, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Alejandro Martinez-Mata's motion for the return of property under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-6770

    ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ-MATA,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Robert E. Payne, Senior
    District Judge. (3:14-cv-00010-REP)

    Submitted:

    December 17, 2015

    Decided:

    December 21, 2015

    Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Alejandro Martinez-Mata, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant,


    II, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Alejandro Martinez-Mata appeals the district courts order
    denying his motion for the return of property pursuant to Fed. R.
    Crim. P. 41(g).
    error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court.

    United States v. Martinez-Mata, No. 3:14-cv-

    00010-REP (E.D. Va. Oct. 24, 2014). We dispense with oral argument
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
    in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like