Legal Opinion

United States v. Deninno

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided December 24, 1996No. 96-6113PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HENRY, Circuit Judge.

Defendant Bonard Ray Deninno appeals from an order denying his motion for return of forfeited property. The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Doyle W. Argo which found the administrative forfei tures of defendant’s property procedurally valid. Although we find the record insufficient to hold the administrative forfeitures procedurally valid, we dismiss Mr. Deninno’s Rule 41(e) motion because it fails to offer any legal basis for the return of the forfeited property. 1

I. BACKGROUND

Mr.…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Austin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. United States v. UrserySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  5. Scott v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. United States v. Donald Lawrence Ritchie, Heather Horner, Claimant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  2. Fernando Mesa Valderrama v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2005
  3. Clymore v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1999
  4. Brown v. Government of the District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
  5. United States v. Rodriguez-AguirreCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2005

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API