Separator Page for Case Number 1:02-cv-04660
Document Number: 4
Docketed By: eav

AMIN
ANIC
I


United States District Court, Northern District of Htinois

Name of Assigned Jud St. Ev Sitting Judge if Gthe~
or Magistrate Judge Amy SL Eve than Ascigued Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 4720 DATE 9/13/2002
CASE Babel vs. Ashcrofi, et al
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party liling the motion, e.g., plainti-f, dctendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion seing presented. |

MOTION:
DOCKET ENTRY: ~
ql) oOo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above, ]
(2) a Brief in support of motion due
@) Qo Answer brief to motion due__. Reply to answer brief due_
@ oO Ruling/Hearing onset for at
(5) a Status hearing set for 10/01/2002 at 10:00 A.M.
(5) Oo Pretrial conference[held’continued to] (set for/re-set for|on =, set for at.
(7) o Trial[set for/re-set for]on at
(8) o (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto_ at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs; by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) CLocal Rule 41.1 OOFRCP41(a)(1) 0 FRCP 41(a)(2).

ao [Other docket entry] Enter Initial Status Order.
(dl) [For further detail see orde: attached to the original minute order. |

No notices required, advised in open court Document

> Numb
No notices required. ber of noti er

| Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

cep 1 6 200

Notified counsel by telephone. dite docketed

Docketing to mail notices. pb
Mail AQ 450 form. adabded andro
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
ons]
daze muiled
courtroom
tHe deputy’s io
initials }-- ——|
Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office _ mang deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DiSTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF {LLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS’ )
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CHICAGO AND ) rave
VICINITY, )
) Case No. 02 C 4660
Plaintiff, ) Judge Marovich
ve ) Magistrate Judge Keys
)
ROEBACK MASONRY, INC. and )
CHARLES ROEBACK, individually )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion lor judgment by default and entry of
final order. The Court has examined the Plaintiffs’ submissions anc is fully informed. It appears that
good cause exists for granting Plaintiffs’ motion:

It is therefore ORDERED as follows:

1. ROEBACK MASONRY, INC. and CHARLES ROEBACK, jointly and severally,
shall pay to Plaintiff Construction and General Laborers’ District Council of Chicago and Vicinity
$2,718.85 in unpaid working dues, interest and liquidated damzges;

2. ROEBACK MASONRY, INC. and CHARLES ROEBACK, jointly and severally,
shall pay to Plaintiff Construction and General Laborers’ District Council of Chicago and Vicinity
$353.05 in unpaid Cooperation Committee contributiors, interest and liquidated damages;

3. ROEBACK MASONRY, INC. and CHARLES ROEBACK jointly and severally, shall
pay to Plaintiff Construction and General Laborers’ District Council of Chicago and Vicinity
$1,213.13 consisting of $999.00 in attorneys and $214.13 in costs

4. ROEBACK MASONRY, INC. shall remit ali working dues and Cooperation

7


Mituute Order Form (06:97)

a Vv United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
\
Name of Assigned Judge George M, Marovich Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge . than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 4660 DATE 9/11/2002
CASE Construction & General Labs vs. Roeback
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plainti*f, devendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.}
DOCKET ENTRY:
ay o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion ue
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due_
(4) oO Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) a Status hearing held.
(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__set for__ at
(7) Q Trial[set for/re-set for] on _ at
(8) a [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at _
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
QFRCP4(m) ClLocal Rule 41.1 COFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).
(102) so {Other docket entry] Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment by default is granted. Enter final order.

| Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs and against Roeback Masonry, Inc. and Charles Roeback, for
| the total amount of $4,285.03. The Court retains jurisdict:on of this case to resolve any disputes
concerning compliance with order.

dl) oa [For further detail see order (on reverse side offattached. to) the origisal minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court. Document
A Number
No notices required umber of notices
Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Notified counsel by telephone. ime dockered

/ | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. . woainblerd 7

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

date mailed novice
courtroom

JD deputy’s
initials |
Date/time received in

central Clerk's Office railing deputy initials



Separator Page for Case Number 1:02-cv-04720
Document Number: 3
Docketed By: I1xs

ANNI
ANEMIC A
ON



ANC.

Mine Orde Form (06 we

“bp

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Amy St. Eve Sitting Judge if Oiher
or Magistrate Judge oes than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 3220 DATE 9/13/2002

CASE Shirazi vs. USA
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢:.g., plainti-I. defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented. |
DOCKET ENTRY:
(a9) a) Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
Q) a Brief in support of motion due _
(3) QO Answer brief to motion due __. Reply to answer brief due
(4) oO Ruling/Hearing on _ _ set for at
(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on _ selfor_ at
(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on_ = set for__ at
(7) O Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) Oo {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs| by-agreemenU/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) O Local Rule 41.1 OO FRCP41(a)(1) 0 FRiP-H1(a)(2).
do xi [Other docket entry} Enter Memorandum Opinion and @rder. Plaintiff's motion for the return of
certain property is granted in part and denied in part. It is denied with respect to the Ford Econoline Van,
the $2,200 in cash and all items that plaintiff used in connection with the offenses or to facilitate the
offenses. It is granted with respect to the Hewlett Packard palm PC, the computer modem and computer
disks seized from his room at the Motel 6.
(1) @f [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.

No notices required

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

vo Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form,

Copy to judge/magistrate judge

courtroom
deputy's
initials

nd

No notices required, advised in open court.

Document
Number
number of notices

Date/time received n
central Clerk's Office

docketing deputy initials

SEP 16 2002

dite docketed,

i

—

awe mailed patice

nailing deputy initials



- Principal legal issues
- Principal factual issues.
B. Discovery Issues

- A brief description of all pending motions
including the date the motion was filed and
the briefing schedule.

- A brief description of any discovery that has
been taken, any Giscovery that remains to be
taken, and any discovery schedules that have

been set.

- A brief description of all substantive rulings
that have been issued in the case.

- All anticipated motions.

- Attach any previously filed written status
reports.

Cc. Trial Status
- Whether or not a jury has been requested.
- Probable length of the trial.

D. Settlement Status

- The status of any settleiment discussions that
have been held.

2. This matter is set for a status coriference on _Oct. 1 ,
2002, at 10:00 a.m. The princ:pal trial attorney for each
party shall appear at that time prepared to discuss all aspects of
the case. Any previously set date for a status report is hereby
vacated.

DATED: September 13, 2002 ENTERI

lug | ABf

AMY J. 8T.
United seatew’ District Judge



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP 1 § 2002
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

BABEL, et al.,
Plaintiffs, No, 92 ¢ 04720
Vv.

Jucge Amy J. St. Eve

ASHCROFT, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER SETTING STATUS REFORT
FOR CASES NEWLY ASSIGNED ‘TO
JUDGE ST. EVE

This case has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Amy J.
St. Eve. To assist the court in acquiring th? requisite knowledge
of the case, it is hereby ordered:

1. Within 14 days of the date of this srder, counsel are to
confer, prepare and file one original and two copies of a joint
status report, not to exceed five pages, with courtesy copy
submitted to Chambers. If defendant’s counsel has not yet filed an
appearance, the status report should be presared by plaintiff's

counsel. The report shall provide the following information in the

following format:
A. Nature of the Case
- Bases for federal jurisdiction.
- The nature of the claims and counterclaims.

- Relief sought by plaintiff, including
computation of claimed damages, if available.

- Names of any parties that have not been
served.



Committee contributions and file all remittance reporis required under the collective bargaining
agreement in the future.

5. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against ROEBACK MASONRY, INC.
and CHARLES ROEBACK, for the total amount of $4,285.03.

6. The Court retains jurisdiction of this case to resolve any disputes concerning

compliance with this Order.

/ A 7
Dated: VA { fa a VA om Ar PU Atdrces
Mono © Ty i

CARCV's Work Documents\LDC-Collection’Rocback Masonry 107-29\Order.MFDJwpd.wpil



me,

CON. “LUSION

Shirazi’s motion for the return of certain property is granted in part and denied in part. It
is denied with respect to the Ford Econoline Van, the $2,200 in cash and all items that Shirazi
used in connection with the offenses or to facilitate the offenses. [t is granted with respect to the
Hewlett Packard palm PC, the computer modem and computer disks seized from his room at the
Motel 6.

a
Dated: Sept.\4, 2002
ENTERED:
L JS
US. District Court Judge



980 (7" Cir. 2001). See also Advisory Committee Notes to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
41(e).

ANALYSIS

Shirazi specifically identifies the follow items to return: a Ford Econoline van with
license plate number T227287, $2,200 in cash, “various papers and documents,” his “clothes,
shoes, Aiwa boom box, whether [sic] scanner, personal photographs, personal phone directory,
book with business information, personal digital assistance by Hewlett Packard, digital phone
directory, several sets of keys [and] cellular phone.” He generally notes that he also is seeking the
retum of “many more personal items,” but fails to identify their.

L Property Not in the Government’s Possession

Many of the items Shirazi seeks are not, and have never been, in the actual or
constructive possession of the United States. The evidence shows that the Glenview Police
Department seized the Ford Econoline Van and the $2,200 when they arrested Shirazi. They
subsequently forfeited these items. In addition, the Glencoe Police Department seized Shirazi’s
personal items such as his clothes when they arrested them. The government never obtained
custody of these items. Finally, the Motel 6 where Shirazi had been staying obtained and
subsequently disposed of his personal items, such as his clothes ard luggage, that were left in the
Motel 6 room. Because the United States never possessed these items, the Court has no
jurisdiction over them. See Solis, 108 F.3d at 722-23. According!y, Shirazi’s motion fails with
respect to those items.

Il. Property in the Government’s Possession

The government does have certain property in its possession that the Secret Service
seized from Shirazi’s Motel 6 room. The government has set forth this property in detail in the
inventory sheets attached to the affidavit of U.S. Secret Service Special Agent Andrise. Such
property essentially consists of two computers, a magnetic card reader, a Hewlett Packard palm
PC, a computer modem, computer disks, counterfeit traveler’s checks, credit cards and false
identifications and various papers. Shirazi used the majority of this property, including the
computers where he stored files containing stolen credit card numbers, to facilitate his criminal
activities. He is not entitled to the return of the instrument of his crime. See Leiva v. United
States, 1994 WL 55689 at *2-3 (N.D. IL Feb. 22, 1994).

With respect to the other items that Shirazi did not use to curry out his criminal activities,
including the Hewlett Packard palm PC, the computer modem and computer disks, the
government has agreed to retum this property to Shirazi. Given that Shirazi is serving his prison
term, Shirazi should communicate through his attorney where the government should send such
items.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
SALEEM SHIRAZI ) DOCKETED
)  -No.02€3220
v. ) Judge Amy J. St. Eve SEP 16 2002
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

MEMORANDUM OPINION ANI) ORDER

Saleem Shirazi pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of Title
18, United States Code, Section 371. Defendant’ offense related to the possession of counterfeit
traveler’s checks, unauthorized and counterfeit credit cards and stclen credit card account
numbers. On March 5, 2002, Shirazi was sentenced to sixty months in prison. Plaintiff Shirazi
now seeks the return certain personal property that the Glenvicw Police Department seized in
connection with his arrest and that the government seized during the search of a hotel room
where Shirazi had stayed. The government agrees to return some of the property and objects to
the return of other items.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Glenview Police Department arrested Shirazi on October 17, 2000 on charges of
possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. The
arresting officers took Shirazi into custody and detained him at the Cook County Jail. They
forfeited a Ford Econoline van with license plate number T227287 and $2,200 in cash. The
federal government was not involved in the initial arrest.

The Glenveiw Police Department subsequently contacted the U.S. Secret Service and
informed them of what appeared to be counterfeit Visa traveler's checks in Shirazi’s motel room
at the Motel 6 in Glenview, Illinois. Secret Service agents thereafter inspected and took custody
of the evidence that appeared to relate to counterfeit traveler’s checks and credit card fraud,
including two computers, a magnetic card reader, counterfeit traveler’s checks and counterfeit
credit cards. The government charged Shirazi with offenses relating to the possession of
counterfeit traveler’s checks, unauthorized and counterfeit credit curds and stolen credit card
account numbers. Shirazi pled guilty and was sentenced to 60 moriths imprisonment.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 41(e) provides for the retum of property seized by the government “on the ground
that such person is entitled to lawful possession of the property.” Because Shirazi brought this
motion post conviction, it is considered as a civil equitable proceeding. See United States v.
Solis, 108 F.3d 722 (7 Cir. 1997). “[T]he test of whether property should be returned is whether
the government’s retention of it is reasonable....” In re Serach of Office of Tylman, 245 F.3d 978,