US v. Katherine A. Hoover

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cv-01087 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999180127]. Mailed to: Katherine Anne Hoover, John F.Tomasic. [12-2443]

Appeal: 12-2443

Doc: 22

Filed: 08/26/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2443

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KATHERINE ANNE HOOVER; JOHN F. TOMASIC, No pending federal
criminal charges,
Claimants - Appellants,
and
$88,029.08, MORE OR LESS, IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY;
$27,671.50, MORE OR LESS, IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY,
Defendants,
and
MARGARET E. LUPHER; DIANE E. SHAFER, M.D.,
Claimants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:10-cv-01087)

Submitted:

August 22, 2013

Decided: August 26, 2013

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 12-2443

Doc: 22

Filed: 08/26/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

Katherine Anne Hoover and John F. Tomasic, Appellants Pro Se.
Fred B. Westfall, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Betty
Adkins Pullin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-2443

Doc: 22

Filed: 08/26/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Katherine Anne Hoover and John F. Tomasic appeal the
district

court’s

order

accepting

the

magistrate

judge’s

recommendations and entering judgment in favor of the Government
in these civil forfeiture proceedings.
record and find no reversible error.

We have reviewed the

Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.

United States v.

$88,029.08, No. 2:10-cv-01087 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 28, 2012).
further

deny

Appellants’

motion

to

submit

newly

information and their request for oral argument.

We

discovered
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

3