USCA4 Appeal: 25-1331 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1331

STEAMSHIP TRADE ASSOCIATION OF BALTIMORE, INCORPORATED, International Longshoremen’s Association (AFL-CIO) Container Royalty Fund Plaintiff - Appellee, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, v. RIKER J. MCKENZIE-EL, JR., Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Adam B. Abelson, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00794-ABA)

Submitted: July 29, 2025 Decided: July 31, 2025

Before KING, WYNN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Riker J. McKenzie-El, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Campbell Rennie, Sharra Tinyi Wong, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee USCA4 Appeal: 25-1331 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

United States. Corey Smith Bott, ABATO, RUBENSTEIN & ABATO, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore, Incorporated.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1331 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/31/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Riker J. McKenzie-El, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing Container Royalty Fund’s complaint seeking an order directing the Fund regarding the disposition of funds purportedly subject to a levy from the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). During the course of the proceedings, the IRS confirmed that the debt that was the subject of the levy had been satisfied and disclaimed any interest in the funds. Container Royalty thus released the funds to McKenzie-El and the district court dismissed the complaint.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Steamship Trade Assoc. of Baltimore, Inc. v. McKenzie-El, No. 1:23-cv-00794-ABA (D. Md. Feb. 28, 2025). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED