
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stacy HUNT, a.k.a. Mario DeSean McCoy, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-30068.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 18, 2011.
    Stephan Alexander Collins, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Andrea Steward, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Stacy Hunt, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
    Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Stacy Hunt appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) seeking return of $6200 seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

We construe Hunt’s motion as being brought under 18 U.S.C. § 983(e), the exclusive remedy for seeking to set aside a declaration of forfeiture under a civil forfeiture statute. The district court did not err when it denied Hunt’s motion as untimely, because Hunt did not file the motion within five years of the date of final publication of notice of seizure. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(1), (3) (providing that “any person entitled to written notice in any nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under a civil forfeiture statute who does not receive such notice may file a motion to set aside a declaration of forfeiture,” but “not later than 5 years after the date of final publication of notice of seizure of the property”).

Hunt’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     