USA v. Kane et al

Filing 237

Order on Motion to Suppress

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
vs.
SECURITY AVIATION, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:06-cr-00022 JWS
ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
[Re:

Motion at docket 70 ]

I. MOTION PRESENTED
At docket 70, defendant Security Aviation, Inc. (“Security”) moved to suppress
evidence obtained in the execution of two search warrants, one issued in 3:06-mj-00018
JDR, and the other issued in 3:06-mj-00018 JDR. Security’s argument is that there was
an insufficient showing to establish probable cause that wire fraud had been committed
to support issuance of either search warrant. The motion was opposed by the United
States. Magistrate Judge John Roberts issued a report at docket 156. His report
recommends that the motion be denied. No objections to the report were filed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate.”1 When reviewing a magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation in a case such as this one, the district court conducts de

1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

novo review of all conclusions of law,2 and any findings of fact to which objections have
been made.3 Uncontested findings of fact are reviewed for clear error.4

III. CONCLUSION
Having applied the standard of review described above in reviewing the record,
this court concludes that in all material respects, the findings of fact and conclusions of
law recommended by the magistrate judge are correct. This court adopts them. Based
upon them, the motion at docket 70 is DENIED.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 11th day of May 2006.

/s/
JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

2

Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by
Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996).
3

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

4

Taberer v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 954 F.2d 888, 906 (3d Cir. 1992).

-2-