Case ID: f-appx_677/html/0400-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John KANE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10181
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 21, 2017
    Daniel R. Schiess, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLV—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las -Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE— Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Andrew Mark Leavitt, Attorney, Law Offices of Andrew M. Leavitt, Esq., Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

John Kane appeals the district court’s order declining to exercise equitable jurisdiction over his motion for return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Kane contends that the district court erred in declining to exercise equitable jurisdiction over his motion for the return of $27,000 seized by the Nevada Gaming Control Board. We review a district court’s decision whether to exercise its equitable jurisdiction under Rule 41(g) for abuse of discretion. See Ramsden v. United States, 2 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1993). After observing that the property was not seized by an agency of the federal government and that Kane would not suffer irreparable injury from the denial of the motion because he has an adequate remedy under state law, the court held that the equities did not tilt in favor of reaching the merits of Kane’s motion. See id. at 325. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise equitable jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.