United States v. Edward Brewer

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Kermit E. Bye and Steven M. Colloton (UNPUBLISHED); Denying [4088054-2] motion for attorney discipline filed by Appellant Mr. Edward Frank Brewer., Denying [4088045-2] motion for default judgment or sanctions filed by Appellant Mr. Edward Frank Brewer. [4128762] [13-2340]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-2340
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Edward Frank Brewer,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: February 18, 2014
Filed: March 3, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Edward Brewer appeals the district court’s1 denials of his Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 41(g) motion for return of property, his subsequent Federal Rule
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 13-2340

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/03/2014 Entry ID: 4128762

of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) motion, and his related requests for discovery and for
an evidentiary hearing.
In denying Brewer’s Rule 41(g) motion, the district court affirmed its finding,
in Brewer’s criminal proceedings, that the currency Brewer wanted returned to him
was prerecorded money that law enforcement had used to make an undercover drug
purchase from Brewer. See R. Doc. 287; R. Doc. 258 ¶ 29. The district court thus
concluded that Brewer had no legal entitlement to the money. We find no error in
these conclusions. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion
by denying Brewer’s Rule 59(e) motion, or in denying Brewer’s discovery motion,
and that Brewer was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 41(g) motion.
See United States v. Felici, 208 F.3d 667, 670 (8th Cir. 2000) (district court need not
hold evidentiary hearing when it is apparent that person seeking return of property is
not lawfully entitled to own or possess property).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Brewer’s pending
motions.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 13-2340

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/03/2014 Entry ID: 4128762