United States v. Persaud , 426 F. App'x 172 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                 UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-6866
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    IAN ANDRE    PERSAUD,   a/k/a    Baby   Face   Persaud,    a/k/a   Mark
    Persaud,
    Defendant – Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.   Frank D. Whitney,
    District Judge. (3:01-cr-00036-RLV-7)
    Submitted:   March 9, 2011                      Decided:    April 29, 2011
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ian Andre Persaud, Appellant Pro Se.       William A. Brafford,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Ian Andre Persaud appeals the district court’s order
    denying his motion for return of his property under Fed. R.
    Crim. P. 41(g).         Our review is for an abuse of discretion.
    Peloro v. United States, 
    488 F.3d 163
    , 173 (3d Cir. 2007).                            A
    district court abuses its discretion if it fails or refuses to
    exercise discretion, or if it relies on an erroneous factual or
    legal premise.         DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rawlins, 
    523 F.3d 318
    , 323
    (4th Cir. 2008)    (citing       James      v.     Jacobson,   
    6 F.3d 233
    ,    239
    (4th Cir. 1993)).
    We conclude that the district court did not abuse its
    discretion in denying Persaud’s motion because it was filed in
    the wrong district.           Rule 41(g) requires that the motion be
    filed “in the district where the property was seized.”                            Here,
    the   property   was    seized    in     the      Greensboro   area,      which    lies
    within   the   Middle    District      of       North   Carolina.     The    district
    court therefore properly denied the motion and correctly advised
    Persaud to pursue his request in the Middle District of North
    Carolina or through the state judicial system.
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
    court.     We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal    contentions    are    adequately          presented   in   the     materials
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-6866

Citation Numbers: 426 F. App'x 172

Judges: Diaz, King, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 4/29/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023