United States v. Whitmore ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                                                                         F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    DEC 18 2000
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    No. 00-5121
    v.                                               (N. District of Oklahoma)
    (D.C. No. 91-CR-9-E)
    ANDREW J. WHITMORE,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
    this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    Andrew J. Whitmore, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
    district court’s dismissal of his “Motion for Return of U.S. Currency and
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    Jewelry.” The district court dismissed Whitmore’s claims as to one sum of
    currency on the ground that the action was barred by the applicable six-year
    statute of limitations. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2401
    (a). The district court dismissed
    Whitmore’s claims as to a second sum of currency and a parcel of jewelry on the
    ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(e), noting
    that Whitmore appeared to have conceded the lack of jurisdiction in his filings
    before the court.
    This court has conducted a de novo review of the district court’s order of
    dismissal, the parties’ briefs and contentions, and the entire record on appeal.
    That de novo review reveals no hint of reversible error. Accordingly, this court
    AFFIRMS for substantially those reasons set forth in the district court’s order of
    dismissal filed April 20, 2000.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT:
    Michael R. Murphy
    Circuit Judge
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-5121

Filed Date: 12/18/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021