Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus MADRIGAL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-02
Citations: 536 F. App'x 720
Docket Number: No. 12-30374
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus MADRIGAL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 536
Pages: 720–721

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus MADRIGAL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-30374.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2013.
Filed Aug. 2, 2013.
James A. Goeke, Assistant U.S., USYA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jesus Madrigal, Post, TX, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, 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
Jesus Madrigal appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) for return of property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Madrigal contends that he is entitled to the return of $4,723.86 seized by the government and forfeited pursuant to a declaration of nonjudicial civil forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881. We review de novo the district court's interpretation of federal forfeiture law and its findings of fact for clear error. See United States v. Alcaraz-Garcia, 79 F.3d 769, 772 (9th Cir.1996). Because the funds were subject to a civil property forfeiture, Rule 41(g) does not provide a basis to challenge the government's action. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 1(a)(5)(B); United States v. Fitzen, 80 F.3d 387, 389 (9th Cir.1996).
In the alternative, the district court construed Madrigal's motion as a claim under the Civil Assets Forfeiture Reform Act and concluded that Madrigal was not entitled to relief because he had failed to file a valid and timely claim under the statute. We agree. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(2)(B), (C)(iii).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.