govinfo:USCOURTS-akd-4_24-cr-00019-6

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA 
 
United States v. George Moises Romero, Jr. 
Case No. 4:24-cr-00019-TMB-SAO 
 
 
By:   THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY M. BURGESS 
 
 
PROCEEDINGS: ORDER FROM CHAMBERS 
 
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant George Moises Romero’s Motion for Return of 
Property (the “Motion”) at Docket 252.1 Romero seeks return of firearms pursuant to the Supreme 
Court’s decision in Henderson v. United States. 2 The Government opposes the Motion, arguing 
that the firearms should not yet be returned because Romero’s conviction is not final and Romero 
has not specified a transferee.3 For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is DENIED without 
prejudice. 
 
As the Supreme Court explained in Henderson, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) bars felons from possessing 
firearms but does not bar a felon from transferring the firearm to a firearms dealer or other third 
party “unless [such transfer] would allow the felon to later control the guns.”4 The statute “prevents 
a court from ordering the sale or other transfer of a felon ’s guns to someone willing to give the 
felon access to them or to accede to the felon ’s instructions about their future use.”5 A court may 
not approve a transfer that would leave the felon “in effective control of his guns.”6 Rather, a court 
may only approve a transfer “if, but only if, that disposition prevents the felon from later exercising 
control over those weapons, so that he could either use them or tell someone else how to do so.”7 
 
In his Motion, Romero has not provided the Court with sufficient information as to his proposed 
transferee. As such, the Court has no way to ensure the transfer would not result in his constructive 
possession of the firearms in the future. The Court may not approve a transfer that could result in 
Romero’s future control over the firearms, either by using them himself or by telling someone else 
 
1 Dkt. 252 (Motion for Return of Property). 
2 Id. (citing 575 U.S. 622 (2015)). 
3 Dkt. 259 (Government’s Opposition) at 1–3.  
4 575 U.S. at 624. 
5 Id. at 627. 
6 Id.  
7 Id. at 630 (“In considering such a motion, the court may properly seek certain assurances: for 
example, it may ask the proposed transferee to promise to keep the guns away from the felon, 
and to acknowledge that allowing him to use them would aid and abet a § 922(g) violation.”).  
Case 4:24-cr-00019-TMB-SAO     Document 263     Filed 08/12/25     Page 1 of 2
2 
how to do so. 8 Further, Romero’s conviction is not yet final and until it is, the firearms may be 
necessary evidence of his offense.9 
Therefore, the Court may not approve the transfer based on the information averred in the Motion 
and will not approve such a transfer before the time has passed for Romero to appeal or otherwise 
collaterally attack his judgment or sentence. For the foregoing reasons, the Motion at Docket 252 
is DENIED without prejudice. 
Entered at the direction of the Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States District Judge. 
DATE: August 12, 2025. 
8 Henderson, 575 U.S. at 630.  
9 See United States v. Bailey, 206 F. App’x 650, 654 (8th Cir. 2006) (“[W]e agree that return of 
[the defendant’s] property, which was evidence of his crime, during the pendency of this appeal 
would have been premature.”). Cf. United States v. Van Cauwenberghe, 934 F.2d 1048, 1061 
(9th Cir. 1991) (“A defendant’s Rule 41(e) motion for return of property, however, may be 
denied if the defendant is not entitled to lawful possession of the seized property, the property is 
contraband or subject to forfeiture or the government's need for the property as evidence 
continues.”).  
Case 4:24-cr-00019-TMB-SAO     Document 263     Filed 08/12/25     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight