United States v. James Thornberg


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Duane Benton, Pasco M. Bowman and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED) [4129759] [13-2648]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2648 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. James Edward Thornberg lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Pierre ____________ Submitted: February 28, 2014 Filed: March 5, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. James Thornberg appeals the district court’s1 denial of his motion for the return of property under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g). He argues that the district court improperly 1 The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. Appellate Case: 13-2648 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/05/2014 Entry ID: 4129759 denied his Rule 41(g) motion seeking the return of his work samples and insurance documents because this material allegedly could not be derivative contraband when he had never used any of it as part of a crime. Upon careful review, we conclude that the government established a legitimate reason to retain copies of Thornberg’s work samples and insurance documents because this material is derivative contraband. See Jackson v. United States, 526 F.3d 394, 396-97 (8th Cir. 2008) (after Rule 41(g) movant establishes lawful entitlement to property, government must then establish legitimate reason to retain property); cf. United States v. Felici, 208 F.3d 667, 670-71 (8th Cir. 2000) (explaining derivative contraband). We thus affirm under 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 13-2648 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/05/2014 Entry ID: 4129759

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?