Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04017/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04017-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Paul Raymond Vigil
Appellant

Document Text:

-

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Unit.ed StateshCoC11rt~ft· Ap~ls Tent. 1rcu1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

PAUL RAYMOND VIGIL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT OCT 171991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-4017 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(Dist. Utah No. 89-CR-0019-S) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, and SEYMOUR and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

In June 1989, a federal grand jury indicted Paul Raymond 

Vigil ("Vigil") on four counts of drug trafficking offenses. 

After one day of trial, Vigil pleaded guilty to Count IV: use of 

a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime in violation 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-4017 Document: 010110091365 Date Filed: 10/17/1991 Page: 1 
of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l). The United States District Court for 

the District of Utah, Central Division (Sam, J.) dismissed the 

three remaining counts and sentenced Vigil to five years of 

imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. 

In August 1990, Vigil made a Motion for Return of Property 

pursuant to Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

Vigil contends that Utah state law enforcement authorities acting 

pursuant to a search warrant confiscated his personal property. 

This property--specifically, jewelry, $1050.00 in United States 

currency, and several electronic devices--was not used as evidence 

in this case and is not illegal per se. Accordingly, he asked the 

district court to order its return. 1 

The district court denied his motion on the grounds that 

"[t]hose items were not introduced as evidence in this matter and 

the court is of the opinion that it lacks jurisdiction to grant 

the relief requested by defendant's motion." We agree. 

In United States v. White, 718 F.2d 260 (8th Cir. 1983), the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit confronted a 

similar issue. The county sheriff's office, not the United 

States, had possession of the defendant's knife and the defendant 

moved for return of this property. The court stated, "[S]ince the 

1 The State of Utah seized the property, but the State 

dismissed its charges and federal authorities prosecuted the case 

in federal court. The State apparently remains in possession of 

the property. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-4017 Document: 010110091365 Date Filed: 10/17/1991 Page: 2 
government does not possess [the defendant-appellant's] property, 

it cannot return his property, and the motion [for return of 

property] was properly denied." Id. at 261. 

Here, the property Vigil seeks was not introduced as evidence 

in this case, the state officials who seized the property were not 

parties to this action, and the federal government does not have 

possession of the property. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district 

court's denial of Vigil's Motion for Return of Property. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-4017 Document: 010110091365 Date Filed: 10/17/1991 Page: 3