USA v. Newman

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CR-25-113-RAW
)
RAMONE ANTUANE NEWMAN, )
)
)
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Before the court is the objection in part of the government (#48) to
the Report and Recommendation (#47) of the United States Magistrate
Judge. Defendant has filed a response (#51) to the objection. The
Magistrate Judge recommended that the defendant’s motion to suppress
be denied in all respects.
Under Rule 59(b)(1) F.R.Cr.P., the district court may refer
suppression motions to a Magistrate Judge for a recommended disposition.
In considering an objection, the district court must conduct de novo review
and “may accept, reject, or modify the recommendation, receive further
evidence, or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Rule 59(b)(3). The undersigned has reviewed the record.
6:25-cr-00113-RAW Document 64 Filed in ED/OK on 01/07/26 Page 1 of 3

The factual background is set forth in the Report and Recommendation.
history.
The motion to suppress was directed toward (1) seizure of
ammunition and (2) defendant’s statements. The government’s partial
objection is that defendant did not have standing to bring a motion to
suppress as to the ammunition, because defendant failed to present
evidence that he rented the vehicle or lawfully possessed the rental
vehicle. The government concedes that the defendant had standing to
seek to suppress his statements. Despite the Report and
Recommendation recommending denial of suppression as to the
ammunition, the government requests that the issue of standing be
addressed.
In response, the defendant has submitted a rental agreement (#51-
1) which (defendant asserts) indicates that the vehicle was rented in
defendant’s name. The defendant’s printed name, the initials “RN,” and
an illegible signature appear on the document. The undersigned is
persuaded the Report and Recommendation would be properly affirmed on
the issues it addresses. Still, as previously stated, Rule 59(b)(3) permits
the court to receive further evidence. The government has not responded
2
6:25-cr-00113-RAW Document 64 Filed in ED/OK on 01/07/26 Page 2 of 3

on this point and the court will receive the proffered evidence of standing.
Under either alternative, the Report and Recommendation is correct.
It is the order of the court that the partial objection of the
government (#48) to the Report and Recommendation is overruled. The
Report and Recommendation (#47) is approved and adopted as the order
of the court. In the alternative, the court considers the rental agreement
pursuant to Rule 59(b)(3).
The motion of the defendant to suppress (#24) is hereby denied.
ORDERED THIS 7th DAY OF JANUARY, 2026.
3
6:25-cr-00113-RAW Document 64 Filed in ED/OK on 01/07/26 Page 3 of 3