UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-4793
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES GORMLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District
Judge. (CR-98-152)
Submitted: March 30, 1999 Decided: April 13, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wilmer Parker, III, Robert P. Marcovitch, KILPATRICK STOCKTON,
L.L.P., Atlanta, Georgia; S. Benjamin Bryant, ALLEN, GUTHRIE &
MCHUGH, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A.
Betts, United States Attorney, John J. Frail, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Gormley appeals from the district court’s order denying
his motion to vacate the ex parte order restraining all of
Gormley’s assets except ordinary and reasonable living expenses,
pending the outcome of his trial on charges of conspiracy to commit
wire and securities fraud and to obstruct justice, wire fraud;
perjury; money laundering; and conspiracy to engage in money
laundering. Gormley challenges the order on the basis that the
indictment fails to allege that he possessed or exercised dominion
and control over the suspect funds and therefore fails to show that
the assets sought to be restrained are forfeitable. He also con-
tends that the district court erred in finding that he could be
held jointly and severally liable for any forfeitable assets
possessed by his codefendants. We have reviewed the record and the
arguments raised by counsel and find no reversible error. Accord-
ingly, we affirm. See United States v. McHan, 101 F.3d 1027, 1043
(4th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1281 (1997); United States
v. Hurley, 63 F.3d 1, 22 (1st Cir. 1995). 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.
AFFIRMED
2