UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6866
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
IAN ANDRE PERSAUD, a/k/a Baby Face Persaud, a/k/a Mark
Persaud,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:01-cr-00036-RLV-7)
Submitted: March 9, 2011 Decided: April 29, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ian Andre Persaud, Appellant Pro Se. William A. Brafford,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ian Andre Persaud appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for return of his property under Fed. R.
Crim. P. 41(g). Our review is for an abuse of discretion.
Peloro v. United States, 488 F.3d 163, 173 (3d Cir. 2007). A
district court abuses its discretion if it fails or refuses to
exercise discretion, or if it relies on an erroneous factual or
legal premise. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rawlins, 523 F.3d 318, 323
(4th Cir. 2008) (citing James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239
(4th Cir. 1993)).
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Persaud’s motion because it was filed in
the wrong district. Rule 41(g) requires that the motion be
filed “in the district where the property was seized.” Here,
the property was seized in the Greensboro area, which lies
within the Middle District of North Carolina. The district
court therefore properly denied the motion and correctly advised
Persaud to pursue his request in the Middle District of North
Carolina or through the state judicial system.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3