United States v. Edward Brewer


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Kermit E. Bye and Steven M. Colloton (UNPUBLISHED); Denying [4088054-2] motion for attorney discipline filed by Appellant Mr.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]

Download PDF
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Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: February 18, 2014 Filed: March 3, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?