# United States v. Charles Harris Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 20, 2000

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1001887

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 20, 2000
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1001887

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2640

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLES HARRIS BROWN, JR.; ERIC D. BELLSEY,

Claimants - Appellants,

and

$15,000.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY;
$1,341.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-99-2861-6)

Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 20, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William G. Yarborough, III, ASHMORE & YARBOROUGH, P.A., Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellants. J. Rene Josey, United States
Attorney, Anne Hunter Young, Assistant United States Attorney,
Marvin J. Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Charles Harris Brown, Jr., and Eric D. Bellsey appeal the dis-

trict court’s order denying their motion for return of property

under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e). We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis-

trate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Brown,

No. CA-99-2861-6 (D.S.C. Nov. 22, 1999). 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1001887. Public record. Not legal advice.