UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6941
FELIX ORIAKHI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DOUGLAS BIALESE, Drug Enforcement Agent;
ANTHONY CANNAVALE, DEA; ROBERT HARDING, AUSA;
U. S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 95-8601
FELIX ORIAKHI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge.
(CA-93-3574-K, CA-95-1396-K, CR-90-72-K)
Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 29, 1996
Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Felix Oriakhi, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Felix Oriakhi appeals the district court's denials of his
motions for return of property. We have reviewed the record and the
district court's opinions and find no reversible error. As to
Appeal No. 95-6941, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. Oriakhi v. Bialese, No. CA-93-3574-K (D. Md. June 6, 1995).
As to Appeal No. 95-8601, we affirm substantially on the
reasoning of the district court. Oriakhi v. United States, Nos. CR-
90-72-K; CA-95-1396-K (D. Md. Dec. 22, 1995). While we find that
Oriakhi's claim for return of property is more properly construed
as a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e), we affirm the
district court's denial of relief on this claim on the grounds of
res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. As for Oriakhi's claims
regarding double jeopardy and sentencing, we affirm the district
court's determination that such claims are more properly brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988). 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 deci-
sional process.
AFFIRMED
3
Oriakhi v. Bialese
Combined Opinion