Case ID: f-appx_403/html/0119-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Isaac PIKE, Appellant.
    No. 10-2394.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 30, 2010.
    Filed: Dec. 6, 2010.
    Edward Joseph Rogers, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Missouri, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.
    Isaac Pike, Ayer, MA, pro se.
    
      Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Isaac Pike appeals the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e) motions for the return of property. Upon reviewing the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for clear error, see Jackson v. United States, 526 F.3d 394, 396 (8th Cir.2008), we conclude that the district court properly denied Pike’s motions for the reasons it stated. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
     
      
      . In 2002, Rule 41 was reorganized, and the substance of former subsection (e) was incorporated into subsection (g). See Fed. R.Crim.P. 41 advisory committee’s notes (2002 amends.) (language of Rule 41 was amended as part of general restyling of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; except as otherwise noted, changes were intended to be stylistic only).