Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Meraz, 3:15-CR-00250-RJC. (2018)

Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20181030b75 Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 29, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 29, 2018
Summary: ORDER ROBERT J. CONRAD, JR. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendant's pro se motion for the return of seized property, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. 41(g), (Doc. No. 90), and the government's response, (Doc. No. 92). The defendant seeks the return of a Mac Pro laptop computer, a hard drive unit, and a Samsung cellphone seized at the time of his arrest. (Doc. No. 90: Motion at 1). The government intended to return the items when the convictions of all co-defendants
More

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendant's pro se motion for the return of seized property, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. 41(g), (Doc. No. 90), and the government's response, (Doc. No. 92).

The defendant seeks the return of a Mac Pro laptop computer, a hard drive unit, and a Samsung cellphone seized at the time of his arrest. (Doc. No. 90: Motion at 1). The government intended to return the items when the convictions of all co-defendants became final, (Doc. No. 77: Response at 1), even though the defendant stipulated to their forfeiture in his plea agreement, (Doc. No. 41 at ¶ 9). However, the government now reports the items are at issue in a pending criminal investigation in another district. (Doc. No. 92 at 1). Thus, the Court finds that the instant motion is premature.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the defendant's motion, (Doc. No. 90), is DENIED without prejudice to be re-filed, if necessary, when the items are no longer needed for the pending criminal investigation.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer