United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. Hollander United States District Judge.
2016, Adeola Adeniyi entered a plea of guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to the charge of wire fraud
conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. No.
ELH-15-421, ECF 162, 163; see also ECF 231
(judgment, entered May 19, 2017). In January 2018, Adeniyi
filed a self-styled “Motion for Turn Over of Passports,
Computers and All My Personal Properties.” No.
ELH-18-238, ECF 1 (“Motion”) (capitalization
altered). In particular, he sought the return of his Nigerian
passports, “electronics computers, Ipad, ” and
other unspecified personal property. ECF 1 at 1.
government responded, arguing that the Court should deny
Adeniyi's Motion for the following reasons, ECF 2 at 2:
First, the Electronic Devices are subject to forfeiture in
accordance with an Order of Forfeiture entered with
Adeniyi's consent and agreed upon in his plea agreement.
Second, the Passports[, which are in the custody of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)] should be placed
in Adeniyi's immigration file with ICE's Enforcement
and Removal Operations Division] in preparation for his
removal proceedings. No. other personal property belonging to
Adeniyi is in government custody.
filed a Reply. ECF 3. He specified for the first time that he
desired that his “Wrist Watches and Jewelries” be
returned to his wife. ECF 3.
decision issued February 13, 2018, the Court denied the
Motion. ECF 4. The Court explained that Adeniyi forfeited the
electronic devices pursuant to the terms of his plea
agreement. See No. ELH-15-421, ECF
In addition, I noted that Adeniyi's passports were being
held by ICE pending his deportation upon completion of his
sentence, and the government denied that it possessed any of
Adeniyi's other personal property. ECF 4.
March 23, 2018, Adeniyi filed a submission titled “Re:
Letter Motion for Returning of Remaining Properties.”
ECF 6 (“Letter Motion”). The Letter Motion
reports that the government returned Adeniyi's Rolex
watch to his wife on March 1, 2018. Id. at 2. This
contradicted the government's prior assertion that it did
not possess any of Adeniyi's non- forfeited personal
property. Further, Adeniyi said, ECF 6:
Respectfully, Your Lordship I employ [sic] this court to
govern by mere factual rule of law and be proactive in their
reasoning before an ORDER are been [sic] made to the
detrimental [sic] of the weak, my last hope lies in this
hallowed chamber to seek equal justice regardless of the
ethnic or racial background.
difficult to discern Adeniyi's desired relief from his
Letter Motion. As the Court has already denied Adeniyi's
Motion for return of property, the Court will construe the
Letter Motion as a motion for relief from judgment under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). “A movant seeking relief from a
judgment under Rule 60(b) must make a threshold showing of
‘timeliness, a meritorious defense, a lack of unfair
prejudice to the opposing party, and exceptional
circumstances.'” Buholtz v. Carroll, 709
F. App'x 177, 177-78 (4th Cir. 2018) (quoting
Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Auto. Ins.
Co., 993 F.2d 46, 48 (4th Cir. 1993)). “After a
party has crossed this initial threshold, he then must
satisfy one of the six specific sections of Rule
60(b).” Dowell, 993 F.3d at 48.
sections of Rule 60(b) provide:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or
its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct ...