United States Tenth Circuit

Denial of a postconviction motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) for return of certain property seized by officers during an investigation that led to the federal drug and firearm charges against defendant is affirmed where there was no abuse of discretion as: 1) the U.S. was not currently in actual or constructive possession of the property at issue, and 2) the defendant had an adequate remedy at law in state courts.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/17/2006
• Published 08/17/2006

Judges

• HARTZ, Circuit Judge., Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, HARTZ and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Eddie Kay Copeman, pro se.


• For Appellees:
  
• Gordon B. Cecil, Assistant United States Attorney, (Sheldon J. Sperling, United States Attorney, and Ryan M. Roberts, Assistant United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Muskogee, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.