Barton Adams v. United States ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1408
BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS; JOSEPHINE ARTILLAGA ADAMS,
Petitioners - Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 16-1409
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS; JOSEPHINE ARTILLAGA ADAMS,
Appellants,
and
$24,764.32,
Defendant.
No. 16-6519
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS,
Defendant - Appellant,
JOSEPHINE ARTILLAGA ADAMS,
Claimant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (3:15-cv-00127-JPB-RWT; 3:09-mj-00024-JPB-JES-
1; 3:08-cr-00077-JPB-RWT-1)
Submitted: June 21, 2016 Decided: June 23, 2016
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barton Joseph Adams, Josephine Artillaga Adams, Appellants Pro
Se. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Lynette Danae DeMasi-Lemon, Alan McGonigal, Michael D.
Stein, Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Barton Joseph Adams and
Josephine Artillaga Adams appeal the district court’s order
denying their motion for return of seized property. We affirm.
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s
denial of a motion for return of property. United States v.
Chambers, 192 F.3d 374, 376 (3d Cir. 1999). We may affirm on
any ground appearing in the record. Bryant v. Bell Atl. Md.,
Inc., 288 F.3d 124, 132 (4th Cir. 2002). The Adams’ motion for
return of seized property was barred by the statute of
limitations because it was not filed within five years of the
date of final publication of the notice of seizure.
See 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(1), (3) (2012). Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s order. Adams v. United States, No.
3:15-cv-00127-JPB-RWT (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 6, 2016); United States
v. Adams, No. 3:09-mj-00024-JPB-JES-1 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 6, 2016);
United States v. Adams, No. 3:08-cr-00077-JPB-RWT-1 (N.D.W. Va.
Apr. 6, 2016). We deny the motion to expedite decision and
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3