United States v. Smith

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-7-2007
USA v. Smith
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2597
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Smith" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 248.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/248
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BLD-3 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 07-2597
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ANTHONY T. SMITH,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 05-cr-00119)
District Judge: Honorable Terrence F. McVerry
__________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
October 4, 2007
Before: McKEE, RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: November 7, 2007)
_________________
OPINION
_________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Anthony Smith was convicted on March 14, 2007 in United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania of conspiracy to distribute more
than 5 grams of cocaine. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 327 months,
which is to be served consecutively to the Pennsylvania state sentence he currently is
serving. Smith has appealed the judgment of conviction and sentence; his appeal is
pending in this Court at C.A. No. 07-1784 and he is represented by counsel.
Following his conviction, Smith filed a pro se motion for return of property in the
sentencing court pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), seeking the return
of his liberty, $144,000.00 in United States currency, and money in his inmate accounts at
the Allegheny County jail and the State Correctional Institution in Dallas, Pennsylvania.
Following the submission of an answer by the government, the District Court denied the
motion, based upon that answer, in an order entered on May 15, 2007.
Smith appeals. Our Clerk notified him that we might act summarily to dispose of
this appeal and invited him to respond in writing. He has not done so.
We will summarily affirm under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, because
it clearly appears that no substantial question is presented by this appeal. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court's decision to exercise
its equitable jurisdiction under Rule 41(g) for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Albinson, 356 F.3d 278, 281 (3d Cir. 2004). Rule 41(g) provides in pertinent part that:
“A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation
of property may move for the property's return. The motion must be filed in the district
2
where the property was seized.” Rule 41(g) directs a district court to receive evidence on
issues of disputed fact necessary to dispose of the motion, and we provided specific
guidance on the scope of this evidentiary inquiry in United States v. Chambers, 192 F.3d
374, 377-78 (3d Cir. 1999) (government may not defeat properly filed motion by stating,
without evidentiary support, that it no longer possesses property at issue).
The government responded that Memphis, Tennessee police officers stopped a car
in which Smith and his drug co-conspirator Kyle Goosby were riding. During a search of
the vehicle, the officers recovered $154,400.00. There was testimony at trial that the co-
conspirators were traveling to Texas to purchase illegal drugs. The money was seized by
Tennessee authorities and never transferred to the federal government. The government
believes that it escheated to the State of Tennessee.
We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith’s
Rule 41(g) motion. We agree with the District Court that Smith’s claim concerning the
return of his liberty was specious. Any claim concerning his state inmate accounts should
not be addressed through a criminal Rule 41(g) motion, and Smith should exhaust his
institutional remedies, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), prior to filing any civil rights action in
federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Finally, insofar as it is undisputed that the currency
was seized in Tennessee (Smith asserted that the money was seized in Nashville), any
motion seeking its return would have to be filed in the District in which it was seized, see
Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 41(g), which is not the Western District of Pennsylvania. Smith’s
3
motion was filed in the wrong venue. The District Court’s denial of it plainly was
without prejudice to any motion Smith may file where venue is proper.
We will summarily affirm the order of the District Court denying the Rule 41(g)
motion for the return of property.
4