USA v. Ashford et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Tyrell Terrence Ashford has filed a Pro Se Motion for Return of Property. (Docket
No. 120.) He seeks the return of “one iPhone Red 8,” which he states was “not addressed
in my forfeiture” and “should be returned” because “the prosecution has no use for said
phone.” (Id.) However, because no cell phones were subject to the Court’s Preliminary
Order of Forfeiture (Docket No. 67) or Amended Judgment of Forfeiture (Docket No. 110),
and because Ashford provides no other information regarding who is in possession of the
phone, the Court is unable to provide any relief based on this motion. 	The Court
encourages Ashford to seek return of his property through the Bureau of Prisons.
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Ashford’s Motion for Return of Property (Docket No. [120]) is
DENIED.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
TYRELL TERRENCE ASHFORD,
Defendant.
Criminal No. 23-139(1) (JRT/DTS)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RETURN
PROPERTY
CASE 0:23-cr-00139-JRT-DTS Doc. 125 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 2

-2-
DATED: February 19, 2026 	_____/s/ John R. Tunheim ____
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:23-cr-00139-JRT-DTS Doc. 125 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 2