# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 28 51

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Mi ch ael Goo da le
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 31 50

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Mi ch ael Goo da le
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Ced ar Ra pi ds

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Marc h 7 , 20 14 Fi le d: Marc h 1 2, 2 01 4 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, MURPHY, an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Mi ch ael Goo da le was co nv ic te d of se xu al ab us e an d ch il d po rn og rap hy ch arg es , an d was se nt en ced to li fe in pr is on
. Thi s co ur t affi rm ed hi s co nv ic ti on an d

se nt en ce on di rect ap pe al

. See Uni te d St at es v. Goo da le , 73 8 F

. 3 d 91 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). W hi le hi s di rect ap pe al was p e n d i n g , Goo da le fil ed th ree m ot io ns in th e d i s t r i c t co ur t se ek in g ret ur n of hi s se iz ed la pt op co m pu te r un de r Fed

. R. Cri m. P

. 41 (g ), di sc ov ery an d Je nc ks Act m at eri al fro m th e g o v ern m en t, hi s cl ie nt fil e an d ot he r it em s rel at ed to hi s cas e fro m hi s fo rm er tri al co un se l, an d an or de r th at t h e ward en of h is pri so n fa ci li ty relea se m ai l t o h im

.
W e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s d e n i a l o f Goo da le ’s Ru le 41 (g ) m ot io n. See 1 Ja ck so n v. Uni te d St at es , 5 26 F.3 d 39 4, 39 6- 97 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (Ru le 41 (g ) m ot io n is pr op erl y de ni ed if pr op ert y is co nt rab an d or su bjec t to fo rfei tu re, or go ve rn m en t’s

ne ed for pro pe rty as ev id en ce co nt in ue s)

.
W e la ck juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s de ni al of th e rem ai ni ng 2

m ot io ns , as Goo da le di d n o t s e e k rev ie w of th e ru li ng in th e di st ric t co ur t. See 28

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa
. The Ho n o r a b le Jo n St ua rt Sco le s, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 2 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa
. -2

-U.S.C. § 63 6( b) (3 ); LeGear v. Tha la ck er, 46 F.3 d 36 , 37 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (p er cu ria m )

(m ag is tra te de ci si on is su ed pu rs ua nt to § 63 6( b) (3 ) is no t fin al or de r , a nd in it ia l

rev ie w res ts wit h di st ric t co ur t); se e al so Dies er v. Co nt ’l Cas

. Co ., 44 0 F.3 d 92 0, 92 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (co ur t wil l rai se juri sd ic ti on al is su es su a sp o n t e w h e n th ere is in di cat io n ju ris di ct io n i s l ack in g)

.
Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t in App eal No. 13 -2 85 1 is affi rm ed , an d App eal No. 13 -3 15 0 i s d is m is se d fo r la ck of ju ris di ct io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-