USA v. McClure et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 3:24-cr-22
vs.
RAYMOND GERARD MCCLURE, 	District Judge Michael J. Newman
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RETURN OF HIS
PROPERTY (Doc. No. 52); AND (2) REQUIRING THE RETURN OF DEFENDANT’S
TWO CELL PHONES AFTER ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________________
The Court is in the process of setting this case for a hearing on Defendant’s objections to
the final Presentence Investigation Report. Doc. No. 47. Meanwhile, Defendant has filed a motion,
through counsel, for return of his property—specifically, two cell phones he describes in his
motion (“the cell phones”). Doc. No. 52. The Government does not oppose the return of the cell
phones to Defendant after the entry of final judgment in this matter. Doc. No. 59. Because the
Government does not oppose returning the cell phones to Defendant after the entry of final
judgment, and because counsel appear to be coordinating the return of the cell phones to
Defendant, see id., there is no present dispute on the merits of whether Defendant is entitled to the
return of his two cell phones.
Therefore, Defendant’s unopposed motion to return his property is GRANTED, and the
cell phones shall be returned to Defendant after entry of the final judgment.
November 26, 2025 	s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:24-cr-00022-MJN Doc #: 60 Filed: 11/26/25 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>