UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BRIAN JAMES ENTZMINGER (2017)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRIAN JAMES ENTZMINGER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50466

Decided: February 21, 2017

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

Brian James Entzminger appeals pro se the district court's order denying his motion for the return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Entzminger contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for the return of ten items seized by the government. We review de novo a district court's denial of a motion for return of property. See United States v. Harrell, 530 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2008). Because Entzminger agreed in his written plea agreement that the property at issue was subject to forfeiture, he is not entitled to its return. See United States v. Fitzen, 80 F.3d 387, 389 (9th Cir. 1996). To the extent Entzminger complains that the government destroyed property not subject to forfeiture, Rule 41(g) does not offer him a remedy. See Ordonez v. United States, 680 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir. 2012).

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network