United States of America v. Edmund Paul Vaisvilas

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDMUND PAUL VAISVILAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-30423
D.C. No. 6:07-cr-00029-DWM-3
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges
Edmund P. Vaisvilas, a federal prisoner serving a 168-month sentence
imposed following his 2008 guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, appeals pro se the district
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
court’s denial of his motion pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) for return of
property, $3,130 in currency. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo the denial of a Rule 41(g) motion. United States v. Comprehensive
Drug Testing, Inc., 513 F.3d 1085, 1128 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court found, based on the declaration of forfeiture that was
attached to the United States’ answer to Vaisvilas’ motion, that Vaisvilas was
given notice of the forfeiture proceeding. Vaisvilas does not challenge that finding
on appeal. Therefore, Vaisvilas’ appeal fails. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(1) (“Any
person entitled to written notice in any nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding . . .
who does not receive such notice may file a motion to set aside a declaration of
forfeiture . . . .”) (emphasis added).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --