Rickey Jackson v. United States, No. 10-1047 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - criminal law. In a proceeding brought for return of property under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g), the district court's rulings are affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-1047 ___________ Rickey L. Jackson, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: October 7, 2010 Filed: October 29, 2010 ___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Rickey Jackson appeals the district court s1 order, entered after a bench trial, granting in part and denying in part his motion for return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), which authorizes a person whose property was seized by the government to petition the district court for its return. Following careful review, we conclude that the district court, after resolving conflicting testimony and assessing witness credibility, did not err returning one CD that had been seized by the government to Jackson, in finding that the remaining CDs and certain paperwork had 1 The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. been lawfully returned to the grandmother of the lessee of the vehicle, and in finding insufficient evidence that the government seized a particular duffle bag. See Jackson v. United States, 526 F.3d 394, 396 (8th Cir. 2008) (on appeal from Rule 41(g) proceeding after bench trial, appellate court reviews district court s legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for clear error); Richardson v. Sugg, 448 F.3d 1046, 1052 (8th Cir. 2006) (due regard is given to district court s judgment of witness credibility, and choice between two permissible views of evidence is not clearly erroneous). Finding no merit to Jackson s other arguments, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
