United States v. Kaleb Basey ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-30196
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:14-cr-00028-RRB-1
v.
KALEB L. BASEY, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Kaleb L. Basey appeals pro se from the district court’s orders granting his
motion for return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) and
denying reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Basey’s
request for oral argument is denied.
As an initial matter, we reject Basey’s assertions that the district court’s
order granting relief was an injunction or “coerced settlement.” The record reflects
that the district court properly granted Basey’s motion for return of property after
the government filed a notice of non-opposition conceding that it had no legitimate
reason to retain the property at issue. See United States v. Martinson, 809 F.2d
1364, 1369-70 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A district court has both the jurisdiction and the
duty to return the contested property once the government’s need for it has ended.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, the court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Basey’s motions for reconsideration after ordering the
government to return Basey’s items and delete copies in its possession. See United
States v. Tapia-Marquez, 361 F.3d 535, 537 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of
review). Contrary to Basey’s contentions, the district court was not required to
treat the government’s notice of non-opposition as a motion to dismiss, and neither
the district court nor this court need reach Basey’s claim that the property at issue
was illegally seized. See Martinson, 809 F.2d at 1369 (“[W]hen the property in
question is no longer needed for evidentiary purposes . . . the legality of the search
and seizure is no longer an issue.”). Finally, no hearing on the motion was
required. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach the government’s remaining
arguments.
2 21-30196
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Basey’s motion for reassignment to a different district judge is denied as
moot.
AFFIRMED.
3 21-30196