Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John KANE, 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 400
Docket Number: No. 16-10181
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John KANE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 677
Pages: 400–401

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John KANE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10181
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed February 21, 2017
Daniel R. Schiess, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLV—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las -Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE— Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Andrew Mark Leavitt, Attorney, Law Offices of Andrew M. Leavitt, Esq., Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant
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
John Kane appeals the district court's order declining to exercise equitable jurisdiction over his motion for return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Kane contends that the district court erred in declining to exercise equitable jurisdiction over his motion for the return of $27,000 seized by the Nevada Gaming Control Board. We review a district court's decision whether to exercise its equitable jurisdiction under Rule 41(g) for abuse of discretion. See Ramsden v. United States, 2 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1993). After observing that the property was not seized by an agency of the federal government and that Kane would not suffer irreparable injury from the denial of the motion because he has an adequate remedy under state law, the court held that the equities did not tilt in favor of reaching the merits of Kane's motion. See id. at 325. The dis trict court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise equitable jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.