From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Russell

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
Sep 27, 2006
Criminal Action No. 2:04cr150-MHT (M.D. Ala. Sep. 27, 2006)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that because claimant "appears to have known of the seizure on the date it occurred . . . the court cannot conclude that the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 983(e) have been met"

Summary of this case from Hammel v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
See 3 Summaries

Opinion

Criminal Action No. 2:04cr150-MHT.

September 27, 2006

ORDER

MYRON THOMPSON, District Judge

After an independent and de novo review of the record, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court as follows:

(1) The recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 72), to which no objection has been filed, is adopted.
(2) Defendant Timothy Russell's motion for return of property (doc. no. 64) is denied.

Summaries of

U.S. v. Russell

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
Sep 27, 2006
Criminal Action No. 2:04cr150-MHT (M.D. Ala. Sep. 27, 2006)

holding that because claimant "appears to have known of the seizure on the date it occurred . . . the court cannot conclude that the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 983(e) have been met"

Summary of this case from Hammel v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

finding movant failed to establish "he did not know or have reason to know of the seizure within sufficeint time to file a timely claim" when the money was seized from him

Summary of this case from Mosby v. United States

denying the petitioner's Section 983(e) motion, where he “appears to have known of the seizure on the date that it occurred since he was aware that the officers took the shoe box with the drugs and money from the table in the hotel room which he had just exited”

Summary of this case from Mikhaylov v. United States
Case details for

U.S. v. Russell

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TIMOTHY RUSSELL

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

Date published: Sep 27, 2006

Citations

Criminal Action No. 2:04cr150-MHT (M.D. Ala. Sep. 27, 2006)

Citing Cases

Vanhorn v. D.E.A

"Thus, in cases subject to § 983(e), it is clear that the movant must show not only that the government knew…

Vanhorn v. State

"Thus, in cases subject to § 983(e), it is clear that the movant must show not only that the government knew…

9 Citing Cases