United States v. Edward Brewer, No. 13-2340 (8th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Criminal Case - Return of Property. District court did not err in determining Brewer had no right to prerecorded money law enforcement used to make an undercover drug purchase. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 59(e) motion, denying discovery or denying an evidentiary hearing.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2340 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Edward Frank Brewer, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: February 18, 2014 Filed: March 3, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Edward Brewer appeals the district court s1 denials of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) motion for return of property, his subsequent Federal Rule 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) motion, and his related requests for discovery and for an evidentiary hearing. In denying Brewer s Rule 41(g) motion, the district court affirmed its finding, in Brewer s criminal proceedings, that the currency Brewer wanted returned to him was prerecorded money that law enforcement had used to make an undercover drug purchase from Brewer. See R. Doc. 287; R. Doc. 258 ΒΆ 29. The district court thus concluded that Brewer had no legal entitlement to the money. We find no error in these conclusions. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Brewer s Rule 59(e) motion, or in denying Brewer s discovery motion, and that Brewer was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 41(g) motion. See United States v. Felici, 208 F.3d 667, 670 (8th Cir. 2000) (district court need not hold evidentiary hearing when it is apparent that person seeking return of property is not lawfully entitled to own or possess property). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Brewer s pending motions. ______________________________ -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.