Barton Adams v. US

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to expedite decision [999838914-2] in 16-1408. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00127-JPB-RWT. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999864702]. Mailed to: Josephine Adams. [16-1408, 16-1409, 16-6519]

Appeal: 16-1408

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1408

BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS; JOSEPHINE ARTILLAGA ADAMS,
Petitioners - Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.

No. 16-1409

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS; JOSEPHINE ARTILLAGA ADAMS,
Appellants,
and
$24,764.32,
Defendant.

No. 16-6519

Appeal: 16-1408

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS,
Defendant - Appellant,
JOSEPHINE ARTILLAGA ADAMS,
Claimant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
District Judge.
(3:15-cv-00127-JPB-RWT; 3:09-mj-00024-JPB-JES1; 3:08-cr-00077-JPB-RWT-1)

Submitted:

June 21, 2016

Decided:

June 23, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barton Joseph Adams, Josephine Artillaga Adams, Appellants Pro
Se.
William J. Ihlenfeld, II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Lynette Danae DeMasi-Lemon, Alan McGonigal, Michael D.
Stein, Assistant
United
States
Attorneys,
Wheeling,
West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1408

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/23/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
In

these

Josephine

consolidated

Artillaga

Adams

appeals,
appeal

Barton

the

Joseph

district

court’s

denying their motion for return of seized property.
We

review

for

abuse

of

discretion

the

Adams

and

order

We affirm.

district

court’s

denial of a motion for return of property.

United States v.

Chambers, 192 F.3d 374, 376 (3d Cir. 1999).

We may affirm on

any ground appearing in the record.

Bryant v. Bell Atl. Md.,

Inc., 288 F.3d 124, 132 (4th Cir. 2002).
return

of

seized

property

was

The Adams’ motion for

barred

by

the

statute

of

limitations because it was not filed within five years of the
date

of

final

publication

of

the

notice

See 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(1), (3) (2012).
the

district

court’s

order.

of

seizure.

Accordingly, we affirm

Adams

v.

United

States,

No.

3:15-cv-00127-JPB-RWT (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 6, 2016); United States
v. Adams, No. 3:09-mj-00024-JPB-JES-1 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 6, 2016);
United States v. Adams, No. 3:08-cr-00077-JPB-RWT-1 (N.D.W. Va.
Apr. 6, 2016).
dispense

with

contentions

are

We deny the motion to expedite decision and
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3