US v. Richard Rudisill, No. 09-7046 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7046 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHARD DONNELL RUDISILL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:01-cr-00048-LHT-7) Submitted: November 12, 2009 Decided: December 28, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Donnell Rudisill, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard Donnell Rudisill appeals the district court s order denying his Federal Rule of motion for return of property. Criminal Procedure 41(g) The denial of a motion for return of property under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambers, 192 F.3d 374, 376 (3d Cir. 1999). A district court abuses its discretion when it fails or refuses to exercise its discretion, fails adequately to take into account judicially recognized factors constraining discretion its based exercise upon of discretion, erroneous factual or or exercises legal its premises. James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993). Although the district court improperly declined to consider the merits of Rudisill s motion, we nevertheless affirm the denial of the Rule 41(g) motion. A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property s return. 41(g). Fed. R. Crim. P. A defendant s Rule 41(g) motion may be denied if the defendant is not entitled to lawful possession of the seized property, the property is contraband or subject to forfeiture or the government s need for the property as evidence continues. United States v. Van Cauwenberghe, 934 F.2d 1048, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 1991). There is no evidence that $2,956 was seized from Rudisill as he claims. Rather, the Government acknowledges that 2 $1,480 was seized, but was retuned to Rudisill on September 16, 2008. is Moreover, Rudisill s Rule 41(g) motion as to his Jaguar denied because Cauwenberghe, 934 the car F.2d was at subject 1060-61. to The forfeiture. indictment Van sought forfeiture of the Jaguar on the ground that it was used to facilitate Rudisill s § 853(a)(2) (2006). drug trafficking. See 21 U.S.C. Evidence at trial established that Rudisill drove the car to buy drugs, and that drug dogs indicated that drugs had been inside of the car. Rudisill next alleges that the district court judge was biased. A judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) (2006); see United States v. Cherry, 330 F.3d 658, 665 (4th Cir. 2003), or in situations in which the judge has a personal bias or prejudice against or in favor of an adverse party. (1994). that See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude there is nothing to suggest that the district court s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. dispense with oral argument because 3 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
