Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Charles THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-17
Citations: 171 F. App'x 628
Docket Number: No. 04-30273
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mark Charles THOMAS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 171
Pages: 628–629

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mark Charles THOMAS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-30273.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2006.
Decided March 17, 2006.
Susan B. Dohrmann, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff — Appellee.
Mark Charles Thomas, Liberty, TX, pro se.
Before: CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mark Charles Thomas appeals pro se from the district court's order directing the government to dispose of seized property. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Thomas contends that the district court violated his due process rights by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing before granting the government's request to dispose of the seized property. But Thomas did not request an evidentiary hearing, and his unsubstantiated claim of a legal property interest in the seized items was insufficiently specific and detailed to require a hearing in this context. See Cohen v. United States, 378 F.2d 751, 760-61 (9th Cir.1967).
To the extent that Thomas contends that the seizure of the property violated the Fourth Amendment, any constitutional defect in the seizure was cured by his unconditional guilty plea. See United States v. Floyd, 108 F.3d 202, 204 (9th Cir.1997).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.