United States v. James Lee Cobb, III, 703 F. App'x 879

James Lee Cobb III pled guilty in 2014 to wire fraud, identity theft, and unlawful firearm possession; sentence: 324 months + 5 years supervised release. Forfeiture provisions did not cover the items at issue.
After sentencing, Cobb filed a Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) motion seeking return of five vehicles, two TVs, and white- and yellow-gold jewelry seized during investigation.
The Government initially opposed return as premature during Cobb’s direct appeal and later advised it did not possess the five vehicles; Tampa Police Department (TPD) had custody, released two vehicles, and auctioned or scheduled auction for the others.
Government affidavits: yellow-gold jewelry was never seized; white-gold jewelry remained in federal custody as evidence. District court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied the Rule 41(g) motion.
On appeal Cobb limited his arguments to the vehicles; the appellate court affirmed denial as to jewelry and TVs as abandoned and addressed vehicles only.
The Eleventh Circuit concluded the federal government did not possess the vehicles (TPD did), Cobb did not show the federal government released/auctioned them, and the district court did not abuse discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cobb)	Defendant's Argument (Government/TPD)	Held
Whether Rule 41(g) entitles Cobb to return of vehicles	Vehicles were seized without proper authority or notice; releases/auctions invalid	Federal government does not possess the vehicles; TPD had custody, released/auctioned them	Denied — Rule 41(g) relief unavailable because U.S. did not possess the vehicles; Cobb offered no argument that the U.S. released/auctioned them
Whether district court needed an evidentiary hearing	Hearing necessary to contest TPD authority, notice failures, and authenticity of documents	Government presented evidence showing it lacked custody; no disputed material facts requiring hearing	Denied — no abuse of discretion; government provided evidence it lacked possession, and Cobb did not dispute it

United States v. Howell, 425 F.3d 971 (11th Cir. 2005) (Rule 41(g) post‑proceedings treated as equitable action; movant must show possessory interest and clean hands)
United States v. De La Mata, 535 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for Rule 41(g) equitable decisions; abuse of discretion)
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (issues not raised in opening brief are abandoned)
United States v. Potes Ramirez, 260 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2001) (government must provide evidence if it claims it no longer possesses seized property)
Aron v. United States, 291 F.3d 708 (11th Cir. 2002) (denial of evidentiary hearing reviewed for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Chambers, 192 F.3d 374 (3d Cir. 1999) (government must justify retention of property when movant presumed entitled to return)