United States v. Tiran Casteel ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 17-2573
    ___________________________
    United States of America,
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    Tiran Rodez Casteel, also known as Tiran R. Casteel; Devan Rodez Casteel,
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants,
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs
    ____________
    Submitted: June 22, 2018
    Filed: July 5, 2018
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Federal inmates Tiran Casteel and Devan Casteel appeal the district court’s1
    denial of their motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) for return of
    the property seized during their arrest and a subsequent search.
    Upon reviewing the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and factual
    findings for clear error, see Jackson v. United States, 
    526 F.3d 394
    , 396 (8th Cir.
    2008), and after careful consideration of the parties’ arguments on appeal, we
    conclude that the district court properly denied the Rule 41(g) motion. As to Tiran’s
    request for numerous collectible coins, which were determined to be stolen property,
    we agree with the district court that Tiran did not establish his lawful entitlement to
    any of the coins. See Jackson, 
    526 F.3d at 396
    . As to Tiran’s request for a starter
    pistol, we agree that, as a felon, he could not possess the starter pistol because it fell
    within the statutory definition of a firearm. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 921
    (a)(3). As to Devan’s
    request for eight firearms seized during the search, we agree that, as a felon, he could
    not possess the firearms, and we note that he did not provide the district court any
    assurance that transferring the firearms to his mother would prevent him from
    exercising control over them. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 922
    (g); Henderson v. United States,
    
    135 S. Ct. 1780
    , 1786 (2015). Finally, as to Devan’s request for $600 cash used by
    Tiran to purchase weapons from an undercover officer, we agree with the district
    court that Devan was not the source of the cash, and we note that a finding to the
    contrary would be inconsistent with an earlier decision by this court. See United
    States v. Huber, 
    462 F.3d 945
    , 953 (8th Cir. 2006); see also Jackson, 
    526 F.3d at 396
    .
    The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern
    District of Iowa.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-2573

Filed Date: 7/5/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/5/2018