Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian James ENTZMINGER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-21
Citations: 677 F. App'x 393
Docket Number: No. 15-50466
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian James ENTZMINGER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 677
Pages: 393–394

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian James ENTZMINGER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50466
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed February 21, 2017
Andrew Richard Haden, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Nicole Ries Fox, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Brian James Entzminger, Pro Se
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Brian James Entzminger appeals pro se the district court's order denying his motion for the return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Entzminger contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for the return of ten items seized by the government, We review de novo a district court's denial of a motion for return of property. See United States v. Harrell, 530 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2008). Because Entzminger agreed in his written plea agreement that the property at issue was subject to forfeiture, he is not entitled to its return. See United States v. Fitzen, 80 F.3d 387, 389 (9th Cir. 1996), To the extent Entzminger complains that the government destroyed property not subject to forfeiture, Rule 41(g) does not offer him a remedy. See Ordonez v. United States, 680 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.