U.S. v. GARDNER, 5:11-CR-228-FL. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20150415b53
Visitors: 12
Filed: Apr. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 14, 2015
Summary: ORDER LOUISE W. FLANAGAN , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court upon Motion of the United States to reconsider the Order, dated February 3, 2015, for the return of certain property seized by law enforcement in connection with the investigation of this case. For good cause shown, the motion of the United States is hereby GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that this Court's Order for return of seized property, dated February 3, 2015, is hereby vacated. With respect to that property
Summary: ORDER LOUISE W. FLANAGAN , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court upon Motion of the United States to reconsider the Order, dated February 3, 2015, for the return of certain property seized by law enforcement in connection with the investigation of this case. For good cause shown, the motion of the United States is hereby GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that this Court's Order for return of seized property, dated February 3, 2015, is hereby vacated. With respect to that property d..
More
ORDER
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon Motion of the United States to reconsider the Order, dated February 3, 2015, for the return of certain property seized by law enforcement in connection with the investigation of this case. For good cause shown, the motion of the United States is hereby GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that this Court's Order for return of seized property, dated February 3, 2015, is hereby vacated. With respect to that property disposed of in October 2014 by order of the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina, as more particularly described in the Government's Motion to Reconsider, the defendant's motion for return of seized property is hereby DENIED. With respect to that property returned to the defendant on February 23, 2015, as more particularly described in the Government's Motion to Reconsider, the defendant's motion for return of seized property is hereby DENIED as MOOT.
Source: Leagle
