Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

05-980 - USA v. Venson et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
05-980 - USA v. Venson et al
September 28, 2006
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM and Order as to Linelle Thompson, April Hartline, Michael Servant, Ismael Garza, Willie Earl Johnson Signed by Judge Blanche M. Manning on 9/28/06. (emd, )MEMORANDUM and Order as to Linelle Thompson, April Hartline, Michael Servant, Ismael Garza, Willie Earl Johnson Signed by Judge Blanche M. Manning on 9/28/06. (emd, )MEMORANDUM and Order as to Linelle Thompson, April Hartline, Michael Servant, Ismael Garza, Willie Earl Johnson Signed by Judge Blanche M. Manning on 9/28/06. (emd, )MEMORANDUM and Order as to Linelle Thompson, April Hartline, Michael Servant, Ismael Garza, Willie Earl Johnson Signed by Judge Blanche M. Manning on 9/28/06. (emd, )MEMORANDUM and Order as to Linelle Thompson, April Hartline, Michael Servant, Ismael Garza, Willie Earl Johnson Signed by Judge Blanche M. Manning on 9/28/06. (emd, )
July 18, 2016
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order written by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 7/18/2016 as to Craig Venson. On the record currently before the Court, the government has not shown that Venson was given notice of the forfeiture of the disputed money sufficient to satisfy the government's due process obligations. The government failed to ask the sentencing judge include an appropriate forfeiture order in Venson's own sentence. And its attempt to forfeit Venson's funds via a forfeiture order in the case of his co-defendant Hartline falls short given the deficiencies in the government's evidence on whether and how Venson was given notice of the Hartline forfeiture order. It is conceivable that the government may be able to make such a showing, but it has not done so at this point. On the present record, Venson would appear to be entitled to the return of the $13,862.45 that was seized from his home and his safe deposit box. The Court therefore orders the government to show cause in writing, by no later than August 8, 2016, why the Court should not grant Venson's Rule 41(g) motion. The government's submission, if any, needs to be focused on the deficiencies the Court has identified. The August 8 deadline is a firm date. If the government files a further submission regarding the giving of notice to Venson, Venson will have until August 29, 2016 to respond. Mailed notice. (pjg, )
April 3, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order as to Craig Venson written by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 4/3/2017. For the foregoing reasons in this memorandum opinion and order, the Court denies Venson's motion for return of his funds in the amount of $10,005 and $3,857.45 [dkt. no. 776]. Mailed notice. (pjg, )