UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6848

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SAMUEL ROBERT QUEEN, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 99-6849

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SAMUEL ROBERT QUEEN, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-369-B, CA-97-2980-B)

Submitted: December 29, 1999 Decided: January 13, 2000 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge.

No. 99-6848 dismissed and No. 99-6849 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

2 PER CURIAM:

Samuel R. Queen, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the

court’s prior judgment on his Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) motion (No.

99-6849). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the de-

nial of this motion on the reasoning of the district court. See

United States v. Queen, Nos. CR-93-369-B; CA-97-2980-B (D. Md.

May 14, 1999).

Queen also appeals the district court’s order denying his mo-

tion for recusal of the district judge in the proceedings involving

Queen’s motion filed under

(West Supp. 1999)

(No. 99-6848). Because Queen’s informal brief fails to contain any

argument concerning the district court’s decision denying his re-

cusal motion, consideration of this claim is waived. See 4th Cir.

R. 34(b). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss this appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See

United States v. Queen, Nos. CR-93-369-B; CA-97-2980-B (D. Md. May

14, 1999). 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.

No. 99-6848 - DISMISSED

No. 99-6849 - AFFIRMED

3