* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 9/3/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

____________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. VALERIE ENGLAND, a/k/a Valerie Cerivan, a/k/a Valorie Foreman, a/k/a Valorie Cummings, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-6355 (D.C. No. CR-94-92-C) (W.D. Oklahoma)

____________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

____________________________________ Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

____________________________________ After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Valerie England, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se andin forma-2-

pauperis , appeals the denial of her motion for return of pr operty pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e). We exercise jurisdiction pursua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, see United States v. Madden , ___ F.3d ___, ___ n.1 (No. 96-6118) (10th Cir. Se p. 3, 1996), and affirm.

Ms. England pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute methamphetamine in vio lation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Ms. England did not appeal her conviction and sente nce. Ms. England later filed a motion for return of property pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e). Ms. England sought the return of (1) $1,167.00 seized and admin istratively forfeited to the Drug Enforcement Administration; and (2) $3,873.00 forfeited to the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety in a judicial forfeitur e proceeding held in Oklahoma County District Court, No. CJ-94-1914. The distric t court denied the motion, stating as follows: The cash in question was seized from defendant on N ovember 30, 1993, pursuant to a lawful search warrant, and on D ecember 16, 1993, after a traffic stop. The cash seized on the se two occasions was administratively forfeited by the DEA and the O klahoma Department of Public Safety, respectively. Ms. Eng land received notice of the forfeiture actions and does not deny any of these relevant facts. Defendant argues that her disclaim er of interest in the money was uncounseled, coerced, and as a result of false promises. She seeks return of the property. Defendant concedes the lawfulness of the search and seizure of the cash on both occasions, and further concedes th e receipt of notice-3-

of the administrative forfeiture. It is settled th at a defendant may not bypass her administrative remedy, i.e., she is not permitted to pursue the equitable remedy allowed by Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 (e) after failing to challenge the forfeiture. This court will not e xercise jurisdiction under these circumstances. In effect, the district court rejected Ms. England' s contention her disclaimers were coerced and found they were voluntary, and that by signing those disclaimers, she forfeited her right to obtain equitable relief in aproceeding under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e).

Ms. England now contends the district court erred w hen it denied her motion. We disagree. We review the district court 's finding Ms. England voluntarily disclaimed her right to the property in question for clear error, United
States v. Maez , 915 F.2d 1466, 1469 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1104 (1991), and find none. Furthermore, in light of th is finding, we find no fault with the district court's conclusion Ms. England was notentitled to equitable relief.

AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court: WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge