United States v. Gordon Stinson Brownlie, Aka: James William Bryant

104 F.3d 366 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gordon Stinson BROWNLIE, aka: James William Bryant, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-10112. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 16, 1996. * Decided Dec. 20, 1996. Before: SNEED, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Gordon Stinson Brownlie appeals pro se the district court's denial of his Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e) motion for the return of a car, a cellphone, and a pager. Brownlie contends, and the government concedes, that the district court erred by denying his motion because Brownlie claims that the notices of forfeitures were inadequate. We review de novo a district court's decision whether to assume jurisdiction. See United States v. Matta-Ballesteros, 71 F.3d 754, 762 (9th Cir.1995). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and vacate and remand. 3 A district court may consider a claim for equitable relief where the…