Lex Digitales Digital economy regulation trends monitor

← back to the document

What changed

United States v. Reynoso · редакция 2 → 3 · зафиксировано 2026-09-17 03:20 · +1 −1 lines

# United States Court of Appeals
On appeal, Reynoso acknowledges that his attorney agreed to accept service of a seizure warrant on his behalf and that, on
January 31, 2025, the government sent his attorney the warrant on which the District Court's civil contempt order depends. He also fails toidentify any evidence in the record that creates a factual dispute as to whether the warrant in question was in fact sent to his counsel.
January 31, 2025, the government sent his attorney the warrant on which the District Court's civil contempt order depends. He also fails to identify any evidence in the record that creates a factual dispute as to whether the warrant in question was in fact sent to his counsel.
Reynoso does argue that there is a dispute concerning whether service of process on his attorney sufficed to provide him with "actual notice of the warrant's demands." But the District
The order finding civil contempt is affirmed.