ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RETURN OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AS MOOT

WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.

The government has responded to defendant Hausmann-Alain Banet's motion for the return of personal property (Dkt. No. 154). That response is appended to this order.

In short, the government states that it has no objection to returning the property in question. According to the government, the property remains in the custody of the United States Marshals' Service. Certain regulations, however, bar the Marshals from mailing the property to defendant, who is currently an inmate.

As such, defendant is requested to please submit a notice as to whether he would allow Attorney Doron Weinberg or another designated party to collect the property on his behalf. Because defendant is in prison, it may take him more than a week to arrange for this retrieval. Defendant's notice is thus due by 5 PM ON MARCH 27, 2014. The motion to return property is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

In response to the defendant's Motion for Return of Property and the Court's Order, the United States responds as follows:

The United States Attorney's Office and Federal Bureau of Investigations have never been in possession of the property identified in the defendant's Motion. Further, the United States has no objection to the return of the property in the manner set forth below.

After receipt of the Motion and Order, undersigned counsel attempted to determine who was in custody of the defendant's property. After undersigned counsel contacted the United States Marshal's Service (USM) and the Alameda County Jail, the USM advised that after Sentencing, when the defendant was transferred from Alameda County/North County Jail to a Bureau of Prisons facility, property in in the defendant's possession was transferred into USM custody. At that time, the defendant was advised to designate a third party into whose custody the property can be transferred. The USM regulations did not permit the defendant to travel to a Bureau of Prisons facility with the property.

Today, after the USM located the property, undersigned counsel viewed the property to determine if the property was the same property identified by the defendant. However, after determining that certain materials, which could be privileged legal materials, were within the items in USM custody, I stopped further viewing of the items. In my review, I did see books, one category of items identified by the defendant. Further, the USM has confirmed that eyeglasses are within the materials.

USM regulations do not permit the USM to mail the property to the defendant at the Bureau of Prisons. The USM is prepared to transfer custody of the materials to his attorney, Doron Weinberg, or any other third party designated by the defendant. The USM further requests that his attorney, or other person, take custody of the materials within the week.