From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Rasberry

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Apr 19, 2006
No. 2:05-CR-00108-PMP-PAL (D. Nev. Apr. 19, 2006)

Opinion

No. 2:05-CR-00108-PMP-PAL.

April 19, 2006


ORDER


Before the Court for consideration is Defendant Rasberry's Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized as a Result of Search by Officers of State of Nevada Parole and Probation (#15). On March 27, 2006, the Honorable Peggy A. Leen, United States Magistrate Judge, entered a Report and Recommendation (#25) recommending the denial of Defendant's above-referenced Motion. Objections (#26) were filed on April 7, 2006, by Defendant pursuant to LR IB 3-2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, to which the Government Responded (#27) on April 17, 2006.

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record in this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and LR IB 3-2 and determines that Magistrate Judge Leen's Report and Recommendation should be affirmed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Leen entered April 17, 2006 (#25) is affirmed and Defendant Rasberry's Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized as a Result of Search by Officers of State of Nevada Parole and Probation (#15) is denied.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Rasberry

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Apr 19, 2006
No. 2:05-CR-00108-PMP-PAL (D. Nev. Apr. 19, 2006)
Case details for

U.S. v. Rasberry

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DELVEN RASBERRY, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Apr 19, 2006

Citations

No. 2:05-CR-00108-PMP-PAL (D. Nev. Apr. 19, 2006)

Citing Cases

United States v. Valenuela

The Ninth Circuit holds that “an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress need only be held if the moving…