Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

PlainSite

Legal Document
Georgia Northern District Court
Case No. 1:12-cr-00053
USA v. Swenson et al

Document 87

View Document

View Docket

A joint project of Think Computer Corporation and Think Computer Foundation.


Cover art 2015 Think Computer Corporation. All rights reserved.
Learn more at http://www.plainsite.org.
Case 1:12-cr-00053-SCJ-RGV Document 87 Filed 01/02/15 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR T H E N O R T H E R N D I S T R I C T O F G E O R G I A
ATLANTA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

V. C R I M I N A L C A S E NO.
l:12-CR-0053-SCJ
HEATHER COTE,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter appears before for consideration of the magistrate judge's

November 1, 2014 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. No. [80]), i n

which The Honorable Russell G. Vineyard, United States Magistrate Judge,

recommended that Defendant Heather Cote's motion to suppress (evidence

seized f r o m her German residence) (Doc. No. [63]) be denied.

O n November 11,2014, Defendant Cote filed objections to the Report and

Recommendation. Doc. No. [82]. In her objections, Defendant objected to the

following findings of the magistrate: (1) that Defendant failed to show that

German authorities acted as agents of the FBI when conducting the search of her

residence i n Germany and (2) that the joint venture doctrine does not apply.

When such objections are filed, the Court must "make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

A O 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 1:12-cr-00053-SCJ-RGV Document 87 Filed 01/02/15 Page 2 of 3

recommendations to wliicli objection is made." 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). After

conducting this review, the Court "may accept, reject, or m o d i f y i n whole or i n

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C.

636(b)(1). Additionally, the Court may "receive further evidence or recommit

the matter to the magistrate judge w i t h instructions." Id. The distiict judge must

also "read the transcript of the hearing before a magistrate on a motion to

suppress, before adopting the magistiate's recommendation." United States v.

Elsoffer, 644 F.2d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 1981) (per curiam).'

After de novo review, inclusive of reading the tianscript of the hearing

before the magistiate, the Court adopts the magistiate's report and

recommendation. Doc. No. [80]. Defendant's objections are overruled.

CONCLUSION

After de novo review, the Court A D O P T S the magistiate's Report and

Recommendation (Doc. No. [80]).

Defendant's objections are hereby O V E R R U L E D .

Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. [63]) is hereby D E N I E D .

'See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206,1209 ( l l t h Cir. 1981) (en banc)
(adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit decided prior to
October 1,1981).

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 1:12-cr-00053-SCJ-RGV Document 87 Filed 01/02/15 Page 3 of 3

IT I S SO O R D E R E D , this ^r^A day of January, 2P15.

e.
HONO'kABLE STEVE C. J W E S
/l^
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

A O 72A
(Rev.8/82)