U.S. v. HOSSEINI

Case No. 05 CR 254.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. AMIR HOSSEINI, Defendant.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Onyx Acceptance Corporation, Petitioner, represented by Jeffrey Alan Ryva , Quinn Johnston Henderson Pretorius.

Marzieh Hosseini, Petitioner, represented by Corey Scott Berman , Law Offices of C. Corey S. Berman.

Tony Bahari, Petitioner, represented by Alan Ray Rhine , Law Offices of Alan Rhine.

Loeber Motors, Inc., Petitioner, represented by Michael Sean O'Connell , Law Office of Michael S. O'Connell.

Greater Auto Chicago Sales, Inc., Claimant, represented by Adam M. Berger , Menges & Molzahn, LLC.

Manheim Automotive Financial Services Inc., Claimant, represented by Daniel Patrick Dawson , Nisen & Elliott.

Arena Auto Auction, Claimant, represented by Daniel Patrick Dawson , Nisen & Elliott.

Automotive Finance Corporation, Claimant, represented by Todd A. Rowden , Thompson Coburn LLP.

GMAC, LLC, Claimant, represented by Edward M. Shin , Greenberg Traurig, LLP., Jason B. Elster , Greenberg Traurig & Thomas E. Dutton , Greenberg Traurig.

Midwestern Financial Corporation, Claimant, represented by John C. Eggert , Karr, Herschman & Eggert LLP.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Joel M. Hammerman , Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Lisa Marie Noller , Foley & Lardner, Debra Riggs Bonamici , United States Attorney's Office & Elizabeth Anne Wilson , United States Attorney's Office.


MEMORANDUM ORDER

MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.

At long last the United States has filed its response (Dkt. No. 849) to the long-pending effort by Amir Hosseini ("Hosseini") seeking the return of property pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. ("Rule") 41(g). But Hosseini has lost nothing from the delay, for the just-filed response demonstrates persuasively that his motion is lacking in merit on more than one ground. There is no need to repeat the government's arguments, for they are well presented in its response. Accordingly Hosseini's Rule 41(g) motion, most recently advanced in Dkt. No. 833, is denied. Hosseini's motion for enforcement of order and return of property (Dkt. No. 830) is denied. Hosseini's motion for status determination (Dkt. No. 848) is denied as moot.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases