United States v. Brian Entzminger , 677 F. App'x 393 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50466
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cr-03450-H
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BRIAN JAMES ENTZMINGER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.
2 15-50466