Christopher Michael Craig v. United States of America

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
IL/Research
08-15579
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL CRAIG,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-15579
D.C. No. 2:08-CV-00110-LRH-
PAL
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Michael Craig appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying his motion under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
FILED
MAR 31 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

IL/Research
08-15579 2
seeking return of his Hummer vehicle seized by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
United States v. Marolf, 173 F.3d 1213, 1216 (9th Cir. 1999). We may affirm on
any grounds supported by the record. ACLU of Nev. v. City of Las Vegas, 333 F.3d
1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The exclusive remedy for seeking to set aside a declaration of forfeiture
under a civil forfeiture statute is via a motion filed under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e). To
prevail on a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e), a movant must show that the
government failed to take reasonable steps to provide the movant with notice of the
proposed forfeiture and that the movant did not know of or have reason to know of
it. 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(1). It is undisputed here that the government sent by
certified mail notices of the proposed civil forfeiture to addresses associated with
Craig, including to Craig’s attention at his last known address and location of the
Hummer when seized, and that it also published notice of the proposed forfeiture
for three successive weeks in The Wall Street Journal. Consequently the district
court did not err by denying Craig’s motion, which we construe as having been
brought under 18 U.S.C. §983(e).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --