Barton Adams v. US, No. 16-1408 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1408 BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS; JOSEPHINE ARTILLAGA ADAMS, Petitioners - Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. No. 16-1409 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS; JOSEPHINE ARTILLAGA ADAMS, Appellants, and $24,764.32, Defendant. No. 16-6519 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS, Defendant - Appellant, JOSEPHINE ARTILLAGA ADAMS, Claimant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:15-cv-00127-JPB-RWT; 3:09-mj-00024-JPB-JES1; 3:08-cr-00077-JPB-RWT-1) Submitted: June 21, 2016 Decided: June 23, 2016 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barton Joseph Adams, Josephine Artillaga Adams, Appellants Pro Se. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Lynette Danae DeMasi-Lemon, Alan McGonigal, Michael D. Stein, Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these Josephine consolidated Artillaga Adams appeals, appeal Barton the Joseph district court’s denying their motion for return of seized property. We review for abuse of discretion the Adams and order We affirm. district court’s denial of a motion for return of property. United States v. Chambers, 192 F.3d 374, 376 (3d Cir. 1999). We may affirm on any ground appearing in the record. Bryant v. Bell Atl. Md., Inc., 288 F.3d 124, 132 (4th Cir. 2002). return of seized property was The Adams’ motion for barred by the statute of limitations because it was not filed within five years of the date of final publication of the notice See 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(1), (3) (2012). the district court’s order. of seizure. Accordingly, we affirm Adams v. United States, No. 3:15-cv-00127-JPB-RWT (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 6, 2016); United States v. Adams, No. 3:09-mj-00024-JPB-JES-1 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 6, 2016); United States v. Adams, No. 3:08-cr-00077-JPB-RWT-1 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 6, 2016). dispense with contentions are We deny the motion to expedite decision and oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
