[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-11525

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-20878-CMA-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICKY NELSON BYNUM, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(June 12, 2019)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Ricky Nelson Bynum appeals pro se the denial of his motion for return of 

property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). On appeal, Mr. Bynum 

Case: 18-11525 Date Filed: 06/12/2019 Page: 1 of 9 
2

argues that the forfeiture orders should be reversed because he never received 

notice of the administrative forfeiture of his 2016 Chrysler 300S and $47,225 cash 

by the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”), and that he won the Chrysler and he 

won and inherited the cash. 

I.

On September 19, 2016, law enforcement searched Mr. Bynum’s residence 

pursuant to a search warrant. There, they located crack cocaine, distribution 

paraphernalia, firearms, and U.S. currency. On October 28, 2016, the DEA sent 

via certified mail notices to Mr. Bynum, his wife, and his counsel, notifying of the 

seizure of $47,225 and the procedures for contesting such a seizure. Individuals 

accepting these notices signed the signature block. Similarly, on November 1, 

2016, the DEA sent via certified mail notices to Mr. Bynum and his counsel 

notifying of the seizure of a 2016 Chrysler automobile and the procedures for 

contesting the same. Again, individuals accepting these notices signed the 

signature block. Starting on November 14, 2016, and continuing for 30 

consecutive days, the DEA posted notice of these seizures on Forefiture.gov again 

explaining the procedures for contesting the same. 

During the intervening period, on November 18, 2016, Mr. Bynum was 

charged by information with possession with intent to distribute a controlled 

substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and possession of a firearm in 

Case: 18-11525 Date Filed: 06/12/2019 Page: 2 of 9 
3

relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The 

information contained forfeiture allegations stating in relevant part that, upon 

conviction of a violation of § 841, Mr. Bynum “shall forfeit to the United

States any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds obtained, directly 

or indirectly, as a result of such violation, and any property used or intended to be 

used, in any manner or part, to commit or to facilitate the commission of such 

violation . . . .” [Doc. 12 at 2.] The allegation also provided that: 

The property subject to forfeiture includes, but is not limited to, the 

following property seized from the defendant’s residence on or about 

September 19, 2016:

a. One (l) Winchester Model 94 30-30 Rifle (SN# 4530724);

b. One (1) Kahr Arms CW 40 .40 handgun (SN# FE5100) 

loaded with seven (7) rounds;

c. One (1) Smith & Wesson Airweight 38 revolver (SN#

CJH4901) loaded with five (5) rounds;

d. $9,026 in U.S. currency.

[Doc. 12 at 3 (emphasis added).]

On January 24, 2017, Mr. Bynum, pursuant to a written agreement, pleaded 

guilty to both charges in the information. In his plea agreement, Mr. Bynum 

agreed to assist the Government in all forfeiture proceedings and specifically 

agreed to forfeit all rights to certain items including the $47,225. Mr. Bynum 

specifically “retain[ed] the right to seek return” of the Chrysler “and the 

Government retain[ed] the right to seek forfeiture of the Chrysler.” [Doc. 21 at 5.]

Case: 18-11525 Date Filed: 06/12/2019 Page: 3 of 9 
4

On January 25, 2017, after no claims contesting the seizures had been

received and the time period for filing such claims had expired, the DEA issued 

declarations of administrative forfeiture as to the $47,225 and the Chrysler

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1609. 

In February 2018, Mr. Bynum filed a pro se motion for the return of the 

$47,225 and the Chrysler pursuant to Rule 41(g). This motion asserted that the 

Government did not give him notice of these forfeitures, that the seizures violated 

his due process rights because the information left our an essential element of his 

offense, that the seizures violated his Fourth Amendment rights because the 

Government did not have a warrant to seize his property, and that he won and 

inherited the seized property. The district court denied this motion, stating that 

“this is not a case where equity compels the Court to intervene.” [Doc. 51 at 1.] 

Mr. Bynum now appeals. 

II.

A. Rule 41(g) Motion 

On appeal from the denial of a Rule 41(g) motion, we review questions of 

law de novo and factual findings for clear error. United States v. Howell, 425 F.3d 

971, 973 (11th Cir. 2005). We review the “equitable equation” of the district 

court’s decision to deny a Rule 41(g) motion for abuse of discretion. United States 

v. Machado, 465 F.3d 1301, 1307 (11th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds as 

Case: 18-11525 Date Filed: 06/12/2019 Page: 4 of 9 
5

recognized in United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1312–13 (11th Cir. 2009). 

Where a party invokes Rule 41(g) after the close of all criminal proceedings, the 

motion for return of property is treated as a civil action in equity. Id. “Pro se

pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys 

and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 

F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). 

Money derived from illegal drug transactions and vehicles used to transport 

drugs and/or facilitate illegal drug transactions are subject to forfeiture. 21 U.S.C. 

§ 881(a)(4), (6). A government agency that seizes property worth less than 

$500,000 must publish notice of the seizure “for at least three successive weeks in 

such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct.” 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a). 

Additionally, “[w]ritten notice of seizure together with information on the 

applicable procedures shall be sent to each party who appears to have an interest in 

the seized article.” Id. After notice is given, a party has 20 days to file a claim on 

the property. Id. § 1608. If no claims are filed within that time, the agency may 

declare the property forfeited and sell or otherwise dispose of it. Id. § 1609.

A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property may move 

for its return. Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g). A Rule 41(g) motion, however, is 

unavailable when property is seized pursuant to civil forfeiture. United States v. 

Case: 18-11525 Date Filed: 06/12/2019 Page: 5 of 9 
6

Eubanks, 169 F.3d 672, 674 (11th Cir. 1999).1 When a party seeks relief from a 

civil forfeiture under Rule 41(g), the district court can only exercise jurisdiction 

over the claim under two narrow circumstances. Id. First, courts may have 

jurisdiction when the agency refuses to consider a request that it exercise its 

discretion. Id. 

Second, federal courts “under limited circumstances” may exercise equitable 

jurisdiction over agency forfeiture decisions. Id. As we have explained, “[t]he 

decision to exercise equitable jurisdiction is highly discretionary and must be 

exercised with caution and restraint. In other words, jurisdiction is appropriate 

only when the petitioner’s conduct and the merits of his petition require judicial 

review to prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (citation omitted). A court may 

contemplate the following considerations when deciding whether to exercise 

equitable jurisdiction: “(1) whether the government agents seized the property in 

callous disregard for the constitutional rights of the petitioner; (2) whether the 

petitioner has an individual interest in and need for the material he seeks to have 

returned; (3) whether the petitioner would be irreparably injured by denial of the 

return of property; (4) whether the petitioner has an adequate remedy at law.” 

Mesa Valderrama v. United States, 417 F.3d 1889, 1197 (11th Cir. 2005).

 1 Eubanks dealt with Rule 41(e), which was reclassified as Rule 41(g) in 2002 with no 

substantive changes. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 41, Advisory Committee Note to the 2002 amendments.

Case: 18-11525 Date Filed: 06/12/2019 Page: 6 of 9 
7

In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mr. 

Bynum’s Rule 41(g) motion for return of property. The Chrysler and $47,225 cash 

were seized by the DEA under civil forfeiture procedures and laws. Rule 41(g) is 

not an appropriate vehicle for the return of property seized by civil forfeiture. See

Eubanks, 169 F.3d at 674. Moreover, the narrow exceptions that permit courts to 

exercise jurisdiction do not apply. See id. The first exception does not apply 

because there is no evidence that the DEA refused to consider a request from Mr. 

Bynum that it exercise its discretion not to forfeit the property. See id. The second 

exception does not apply because Mr. Bynum has not demonstrated that his 

conduct and the merits of his petition required judicial review so as to prevent 

“manifest injustice.” See id. 

B. Civil Asset Forfeiture Act 

The exclusive remedy for seeking to set aside a declaration of civil forfeiture 

is under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (“CAFRA”), codified in part at 18 

U.S.C. § 983. Id. at 1195. “Thus, a party seeking to challenge a nonjudicial 

forfeiture that falls within CAFRA’s purview is limited to doing so under 

[§ 983(e)].” Id. That statute provides:

Any person entitled to written notice in any nonjudicial civil forfeiture 

proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute who does not receive such 

notice may file a motion to set aside a declaration of forfeiture with 

respect to that person’s interest in the property, which motion shall be 

granted if—

Case: 18-11525 Date Filed: 06/12/2019 Page: 7 of 9 
8

(A) the Government knew, or reasonably should have known, 

of the moving party’s interest and failed to take reasonable 

steps to provide such party with notice; and

(B) the moving party did not know or have reason to know of 

the seizure within sufficient time to file a timely claim.

18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(1). In addition, under CAFRA, a claimant has the burden of 

proving that he is an “innocent owner,” which means that he is an “owner who did 

not know of the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture.” Id. § 983(d)(1), (2)(A)(i).

We have determined that we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of 

administrative or nonjudicial forfeitures under CAFRA. Mesa Valderrama, 417 

F.3d at 1196. Instead, our review is limited to whether the agency followed the 

“proper procedural safeguards.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). “The only issue 

[we] can consider is whether [the petitioner] received the appropriate notice in 

sufficient time to contest the agency’s action of summarily forfeiting the 

[property].” Id. Courts may also invoke their equitable jurisdiction to consider 

claims brought under CAFRA in “exceptional cases where equity demands 

intervention.” Id. at 1197. 

Due process requires that individuals whose property interests are at risk due 

to government action be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Mullane v. 

Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 S. Ct. 652, 657 (1950). 

The notice must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise 

interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to 

Case: 18-11525 Date Filed: 06/12/2019 Page: 8 of 9 
9

present their objections.” Id. at 314, 70 S. Ct. at 657. “Reasonable notice,” 

however, requires only that the government attempt to provide actual notice; it 

does not require that the government demonstrate that it was successful in 

providing actual notice. Mesa Valderrama, 417 F.3d at 1197.

Mr. Bynum failed to mention CAFRA as a ground for relief in his motion, 

but he did argue that he did not receive notice of the civil forfeiture. Liberally 

construing Mr. Bynum’s pro se motion as an action brought under CAFRA, 

however, his claim still fails. The record indicates that Mr. Bynum was given 

“reasonable notice.” See Mesa Valderrama, 417 F.3d at 1195–97. Further, this is 

not an exceptional case where equity demands intervention, as Mr. Bynum was not 

an “innocent owner” under CAFRA because he knew about and was involved in 

the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(d).

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby

AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-11525 Date Filed: 06/12/2019 Page: 9 of 9