United States v. Donoho

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided October 31, 2002

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2002-10-31

Relies on Equipment Finance Group, Incorporated v. Traverse Computer Brokers, and Synchronized Design and Development Company, Incorporated

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion, · Decided 2002-10-31

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Patricia Donoho and Bonnie Canavan appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for return of forfeited and seized property. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we *466 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Donoho, No. CR-01-232-S (D. Md. Apr. 19 & 24, 2002). 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.

¶2 AFFIRMED.

¶3 Although this appeal was interlocutory when filed, we have jurisdiction because the district court entered a final order prior to our consideration of the appeal. See Equipment Finance Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir.1992).