Opinion ID: 3014550
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Albinson at 69 Mine Run Road in

Text: Rule 41(g) motion. The government did Limerick, Pennsylvania. On February not respond to either motion. 10, 1995, Albinson was arrested for the unauthorized sale of United States On May 14, 1999, the District property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. Court entered a default judgment in favor The indictment alleged Albinson sold of Albinson, and ordered the government United States property to government to return the seized property by June 15, agents on six occasions in 1993. The 1999. The District Court also ordered indictment did not, however, charge the government to file a “verified Albinson with any offense related to the declaration based on first hand property seized during the 1994 search. knowledge” for each item that “had been lost, destroyed [or] misplaced,” On April 24, 1995, Albinson describing the “reasons why the property entered a guilty plea on all six counts of cannot be returned . . . to hold an the indictment. Albinson subsequently evidentiary hearing thereon.” App. 16. attempted to withdraw his guilty plea, but On June 15, 1999, the government the District Court denied his motion. On responded that it was “physically unable February 18, 1998, Albinson was to comply” with the order, because sentenced to 15 months in prison, plus certain property had been returned to three years of supervised release. Albinson, and the remaining items had On April 21, 1998, while serving been either acquired by third parties or his sentence, Albinson filed a pro se destroyed. App. 146. The government motion for return of property under Fed. submitted no documentary evidence in R. Crim. Pro. 41(g). Albinson sought support of its response. It simultaneously return of “every item listed on the seizure filed a motion for reconsideration warrant/property list and those items requesting an opportunity to respond to seized where no receipt was given.” Albinson’s motions. The District Court granted the motion for reconsideration, and the government responded to 2 The inventory of seized property lists Albinson’s motions. over 200 items, including floor tiles, tool On January 16, 2001, the District kits, ethanol, batteries, a pump and Court denied Albinson’s Rule 41(g) motor, ovens, stainless steel sinks, motion without conducting an computer modems, rolodex records, ear evidentiary hearing. United States v. plugs and trousers. Supp. App. 29-42. Albinson, No. 95-19-01, 2001 U.S. Dist. F.3d at 376. Under Fed. R. Crim. P. LEXIS 374 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2001). 41(g), The District Court found the government A person aggrieved by an failed to carry its burden of proving a unlawful search and “cognizable claim of ownership or right seizure of property or by of possession” in the seized property, but the deprivation of property denied the motion nevertheless. Id. at may move for the . The District Court determined the property’s return . . . . The government had irrevocably lost or court must receive destroyed the seized property, and evidence on any factual therefore this Court’s holding in United issue necessary to decide States v. Bein, 214 F.3d 408 (3d Cir. the motion. If it grants the 2000), rendered it “powerless” to award motion, the court must monetary damages in lieu of returning return the property to the the seized property. Albinson, 2001 U.S. movant, but may impose Dist. LEXIS 374, at . The District reasonable conditions to Court concluded that an evidentiary protect access to the hearing was “not required in light of the property and its use in later futile outcome.” Id. at . proceedings. Albinson timely filed this appeal. 3 Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) (emphasis added).