
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patricia DONOHO; Bonnie Canavan, Claimants-Appellants, and Francis Lee, a/k/a Le Tuyen Dinh, Defendant.
    No. 02-1548.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 21, 2002.
    Decided Oct. 31, 2002.
    Patricia Donoho, Bonnie Canavan, Appellants Pro Se. Stephen Matthew Schenning, United States Attorney, Martin Joseph Clarke, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion,
   PER CURIAM.

Patricia Donoho and Bonnie Canavan appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for return of forfeited and seized property. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Donoho, No. CR-01-232-S (D. Md. Apr. 19 & 24, 2002). 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. 
      
       Although this appeal was interlocutory when filed, we have jurisdiction because the district court entered a final order prior to our consideration of the appeal. See Equipment Finance Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347-48 (4th Cir.1992).
     