Craft
United States v. Craft
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
David Earl Craft appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his motion pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e) (“Rule 41(e)”) for the return of property seized by the United States following his conviction for conspiracy to import cocaine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion for return of property, United States v. Mills, 991 F.2d 609, 612 (9th Cir.1993), and its underlying factual findings for clear error, U.S. v. Marolf, 173 F.3d 1213, 1216 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Craft was not entitled to lawful possession of the Chrystaliner boat. See Mills, 991 F.2d at 612 .
A Rule 41(e) motion is properly denied “if the defendant is not entitled to lawful possession of the seized property....” See id. quoting United States v. Van Cauwenberghe, 934 F.2d 1048, 1061 (9th Cir.1991).
According to Craft’s own testimony, he was an intermediary for the individual who financed the boat. As the district court noted, Craft’s arguments misconstrue single lines of testimony, taking them out of context, while ignoring the large amount of contrary testimony. The district…