US v. Avon Carroll
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cv-00204-CCE-PTS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998820065]. Mailed to: Carroll. [11-2197]
Appeal: 11-2197
Document: 12
Date Filed: 03/28/2012
Page: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2197
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
AVON CARROLL,
Claimant – Appellant,
and
CURRENCY, $447,815.00 IN U.S.,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:09-cv-00204-CCE-PTS)
Submitted:
March 19, 2012
Decided:
March 28, 2012
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Avon Carroll, Appellant Pro Se.
Lynne P. Klauer, Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Greensboro,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 11-2197
Document: 12
Date Filed: 03/28/2012
Page: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Avon Carroll appeals from the district court’s decree
and
judgment
directing
States currency
in
the
the
forfeiture
United
of
$447,815
in
rem
States’
in
action
United
seeking
forfeiture of the currency under 21 U.S.C.A. § 881(a)(6) (West
2006 & Supp. 2011) and 18 U.S.C.A. § 981(a)(1)(C) (West 2006 &
Supp. 2011).
Carroll argues that the district court erred in
adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and striking
his claim for the currency and his answer to the United States’
verified complaint.
We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by
court.
the
district
$447,815.00,
No.
and
materials
legal
before
States
1:09-cv-00204-CCE-PTS
Sept. 7, 2011).
facts
United
We
dispense
with
v.
(M.D.N.C.
oral
argument
contentions
are
adequately
the
and
argument
court
Currency,
Sept. 2
because
presented
would
U.S.,
not
&
the
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?