444 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1971), 26566, United States v. Freedman

Docket Nº:26566.
Citation:444 F.2d 1387
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William FREEDMAN, Appellant.
Case Date:June 22, 1971
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Page 1387

444 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1971)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,


William FREEDMAN, Appellant.

No. 26566.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

June 22, 1971

Rehearing Denied July 15, 1971

Burton Marks, of Marks, Sherman & London, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant.

James H. Bozarth, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U.S. Atty., Alan H. Friedman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., for appellee.

Before MERRILL, HUFSTEDLER and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.

KILKENNY, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying appellant's Rule 41(e), F.R.Crim.P., motions for the return of property wrongfully seized.


Inasmuch as substantially all of the essential facts are stated in the opinion on the previous appeal, Freedman v. United States, 421 F.2d 1293 (9th Cir. 1970), we shall limit our statement to the bare essentials.

Following the seizure of appellant's property in the criminal proceeding, including the $13,100.00 here in question, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, on December 23, 1968, caused an assessment to be made against the appellant for income taxes in the sum of $13,953.50 for the taxable year ending December 17, 1968. On the same date, the Commissioner levied on the $13,100.00 previously seized in the criminal action, by

Page 1388

serving a 'Notice of Levy' on the United States Customs Service which was in possession of the money. On January 9, 1969, the Commissioner took possession of the $13,100.00, converted it into the form of a certified check and posted a credit in that amount to the account of the taxpayer. Rule 41(e) procedures for return of the money, and other property not here in question, were instituted by appellant on April 16th and April 22nd, 1969.

In the hearing on the remand from the previous appeal, the government agreed to a return of all of the properties, with the exception of the $13,100.00, and three other items which it considered relevant as evidence in the criminal case. The district court for the Central District of California, in the exercise of its discretion, again referred the suppression motions to the Southern District of California, holding that there was sufficient connection between the four remaining items, including the $13,100.00 and the case in the...

To continue reading