From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Ramirez

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 19, 2011
444 F. App'x 114 (9th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 10-10329.

Submitted July 12, 2011.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

July 19, 2011.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:99-cr-00195-LDG.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Raul Ramirez appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g) motion to return $4,527 seized from him on May 4, 1999. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ramirez contends that the district court erred in dismissing his Rule 41(g) motion as barred by the statute of limitations. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Ramirez's motion was filed on May 8, 2008, and the motion was therefore untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Ramirez

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 19, 2011
444 F. App'x 114 (9th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

U.S. v. Ramirez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAUL RAMIREZ…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 19, 2011

Citations

444 F. App'x 114 (9th Cir. 2011)

Citing Cases

United States v. Surratt

While the Eighth Circuit has not yet ruled on whether Rule 41(g) is subject to a statute of limitations,…

United States v. Dotstry

Whatever the merits of this argument, it is inapplicable here, as the Court is bound by Eighth Circuit…