Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01408/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01408-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barton Joseph Adams
Appellant
Josephine Artillaga Adams
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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

Appeal: 16-1408 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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-JES1; 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 16-1408 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 16-1408 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/23/2016 Pg: 3 of 3