Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Cote

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

January 2, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
HEATHER COTE, Defendant.

ORDER

STEVE C. JONES, District Judge.

This matter appears before for consideration of the magistrate judge's November 7, 2014 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. No. [80]), in which The Honorable Russell G. Vineyard, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that Defendant Heather Cote's motion to suppress (evidence seized from her German residence) (Doc. No. [63]) be denied.

On 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 in 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 recommendations to wliicli objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After conducting this review, the Court "may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in 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 with 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).[1]

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 ADOPTS the magistiate's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. [80]).

Defendant's objections are hereby OVERRULED.

Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. [63]) is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.