United States v. DeBlasio

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-7376 KEITH WILLIAM DEBLASIO, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-7377 KEITH WILLIAM DEBLASIO, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-7831 KEITH WILLIAM DEBLASIO, Defendant-Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-397-JFM, CA-96-1406-JFM, CA-96-2793-JFM) Submitted: February 28, 1997 Decided: March 21, 1997 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. No. 96-7377 affirmed and Nos. 96-7376 and 96-7831 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Keith William DeBlasio, Appellant Pro Se. Ira Lee Oring, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Keith W. DeBlasio appeals from the district court's orders dismiss- ing two motions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217 1 and a motion for return of property brought under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e). 2 We affirm No. 96-7377 and dismiss No. 96-7376 and No. 96-7831. Addressing DeBlasio's Rule 41(e) motion, we find that, even assuming a remedy following the government's disposal of his prop- erty, DeBlasio has not demonstrated any entitlement to damages. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of his motion. Addressing DeBlasio's § 2255 motions we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. DeBlasio, Nos. CR-94-397-JFM; CA-96-1406-JFM; CA-96-2793-JFM (D. Md. July 19, 1996, Oct. 24, 1996). We note _________________________________________________________________ 1 No. 96-7376 and No. 96-7831. 2 No. 96-7377. 2 that although the district court failed to address one claim in DeBla- sio's first motion the claim would not entitle to him relief. Further, the court did consider this claim in DeBlasio's second motion and he was therefore not harmed by the court's oversight. 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. No. 96-7377-AFFIRMED Nos. 96-7376/7831-DISMISSED _________________________________________________________________ 3 We also deny DeBlasio's motion for appointment of counsel in No. 96-7376 and his motions for stay in both No. 96-7376 and 96-7831. 3