Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph HALL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-15
Citations: 421 F. App'x 721
Docket Number: No. 10-10211
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph HALL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 421
Pages: 721–722

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph HALL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10211.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 15, 2011.
Kathleen Bliss, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Anthony Humphreys, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joseph Hall, Atwater, CA, pro se.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joseph Hall appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure section 41(e) motion for the return of seized currency. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Hall contends that the government failed to comply with the due process notice requirement because it failed to ensure that he was personally served with the notice of the pending forfeiture proceedings. The record reflects that, by delivering a certified-mail notice of pending administrative forfeiture proceedings addressed to Hall at the detention center where he was incarcerated and receiving a receipt confirming delivery, the government complied with the due process notice requirements for property seizure. See Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 168-71, 122 S.Ct. 694, 151 L.Ed.2d 597 (2002).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.