US v. Ian Persaud

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:01-cr-00036-RLV-7. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998578871] Mailed to: Ian Andre Persaud. [10-6866]

Appeal: 10-6866

Document: 9

Date Filed: 04/29/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6866

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
IAN ANDRE
Persaud,

PERSAUD,

a/k/a

Baby

Face

Persaud,

a/k/a

Mark

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:01-cr-00036-RLV-7)

Submitted:

March 9, 2011

Decided:

April 29, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ian Andre Persaud, Appellant Pro Se.
William A. Brafford,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6866

Document: 9

Date Filed: 04/29/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ian Andre Persaud appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for return of his property under Fed. R.
Crim. P. 41(g).

Our review is for an abuse of discretion.

Peloro v. United States, 488 F.3d 163, 173 (3d Cir. 2007).

A

district court abuses its discretion if it fails or refuses to
exercise discretion, or if it relies on an erroneous factual or
legal premise.
(4th Cir. 2008)

DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rawlins, 523 F.3d 318, 323
James

(citing

v.

Jacobson,

6

F.3d

233,

239

(4th Cir. 1993)).
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Persaud’s motion because it was filed in
the wrong district.

Rule 41(g) requires that the motion be

filed “in the district where the property was seized.”
the

property

within

the

was

Middle

seized

in

District

the
of

Greensboro

North

area,

Carolina.

which

The

Here,
lies

district

court therefore properly denied the motion and correctly advised
Persaud to pursue his request in the Middle District of North
Carolina or through the state judicial system.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions

are

adequately

2

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 10-6866

before

Document: 9

Date Filed: 04/29/2011

the

and

court

argument

would

Page: 3 of 3

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3