Dickman

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Craig Dickman, a federal prison inmate, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) for return of a “4 carat diamond and gold wedding ring” he alleges he left in a rental car the government seized following his arrest for bank robbery. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Dickman contends that the district court erred in finding that there was no evidence that the government seized the alleged ring, or that the ring even existed. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for return of property pursuant to Rule 41(g), and review the district court’s underlying factual determinations for clear error. United States v. Marolf, 173 F.3d 1213, 1216 (9th Cir.1999). Although under Rule 41(g), formerly Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e), a district court may order the government to return property, United States v. Van Cauwenberghe, 934 F.2d 1048, 1061 (9th Cir.1991), a district court cannot order the government to return property not in its custody. United States v. Marshall, 338 F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir.2003).

The evidence presented to the district court by the government…