2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-14-2011 

# U S A v . C h a r les B r o ok s
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 11-3235

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . C h a rle s B r oo k s " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 353. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/3531 

### CLD
- 303 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11

- 3235

___________ UNITED STATES OF AMER ICA

v. CHARLES AARON BROOKS, Appellant



### ____________________________________ On Appeal from the Unite d States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal No. 2

- 95

- cr - 00564

- 001) District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle III

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit L AR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 September 29, 2011 Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : October 14, 2011 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Charles Brooks is a federal prisoner , convicted in 1996 for his part in a series of armed bank robberies. In April 2011, Brooks filed a Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) motion for the return of property that, he argues, was unlawfully seized in 1995 by government2 

### agents

— specifically, the “Ten Squad” unit

— prior to his indictment on the present charges. His motion, while difficult to parse, appears to claim that the Ten Squad entered three properties at which he resided and took currency, jewelry, clothing, and other items, which they used to compel pa rties in his case to testify against one another. Brooks avers that proper records were not kept of this activity, and that he only discovered that his property had been taken in April 2011, shortly before he filed his Rule 41(g) motion. Directed to resp ond by the District Court, the Government argued that Brooks’s motion was untimely. The Court agreed, denying relief and rejecting Brooks’s ensuing request for reconsideration. Brooks filed a timely notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Gov’t of V.I. v. Edwards , 903 F.2d 267, 272 (3d Cir. 1990) . While “[i] n most Rule 41(g) cases demanding return of

. . . property [] ‘we review the District Court’ s decision to exercise its equitable jurisdiction for abuse of discretion , ’” United States v. Bennett , 423 F.3d 271, 274 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Chambers , 192 F.3d 374, 376 (3d Cir. 1999) ), the applicability of a statute of limitations is a legal question that we review de novo. Syed v. Hercules, Inc. , 214 F.3d 155, 159 n. 2 (3d Cir. 2000) ; see also Somoza v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ. , 538 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2008) . Having examined the record, we are in full accord with the District Court and will summarily affirm its orders. Murray v. Bledsoe , No. 10

- 4397, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 2279428, at *1 (3d Cir. June 10, 2011); see also Third Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6 . Even under the District Court’s generous reading of the six

- year limitations period, see Bertin v. United States , 478 F.3d 489, 492 (2d Cir. 2007) , Br ooks’s motion is untimely. His argument that he only discovered the seizure in3 

### 2011 is unavailing; given the amount of property taken and the intervening passage of time, he “ cannot argue with a straight face that it took him more than six years to find o ut that his property had been ” seized. United States v. Duke , 229 F.3d 627, 630 (7 th 

### Cir. 2000) ; see also United States v. Wright , 361 F.3d 288, 290 (5 th 

### Cir. 2004) (discussing awareness of Government action in the context of forfeiture). Brooks repeated ly refers to an “Attachment A” to support his claim of recent discovery, but no such attachment appears to accompany any of his submissions. Because the District Court correctly deemed the motion to be untimely, it did not abuse its discretion by refusing to reconsider its ruling. United States v. Dupree , 617 F.3d 724, 732 (3d Cir. 2010)

. Finally, if Brooks wishes to attack his conviction or sentence

— and he appears to challenge evidence allegedly withheld by the prosecution in his case

— he must proceed vi a 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See In re Dorsainvil , 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. 1997) . To the extent that it requests independent relief, Brooks’s “Motion to Clearify [ sic ]” is denied.