MEMORANDUM

Quezon S. Gray appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in a civil forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(6) for $79,010 in U.S. currency that officers seized from a hidden compartment of a trailer attached to a truck driven by Gray. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, United States v. $133,420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 637 (9th Cir.2012), and we affirm.

The undisputed evidence submitted by the government established, by a preponderance of the evidence, a substantial connection between the seized currency and illegal drug activity, and thus was sufficient to satisfy the government’s burden of proof. See 18 U.S.C. § 983 (c); United States v. $22,474-00 in U.S. Currency, 246 F.3d 1212, 1216-17 (9th Cir.2001) (stating that the claimant’s conflicting statements and inability to answer simple questions supported an inference that the money was drug-related and that a prior conviction for drug trafficking provided the necessary link between the incriminating circumstances and illegal drugs); United States v. $129, 727.00 in U.S. Currency, 129 F.3d 486 , 491 (9th Cir.1997) (stating that the distinctive manner in which the currency was wrapped in fabric softener sheets and plastic wrap provided the requisite nexus to drugs); United States v. $29,959.00 in U.S. Currency, 931 F.2d 549, 553 (9th Cir. 1991) (stating that carrying a large sum of cash is “strong evidence” of a connection to illegal drug activity).

Moreover, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Gray, he failed to present sufficient plausible evidence to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, his innocent ownership of the seized currency, see 18 U.S.C. § 983 (d), or to “create[ ] a genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial,” United States v. Currency, U.S. $42,500.00, 283 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir.2002). Because no reasonable person could return a verdict for Gray based on the evidence presented, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the government. See $42,500.00, 283 F.3d at 983-84 ; see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 252 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3. made in his opening brief. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).