
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel LAVENANT, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 15-50307, 15-50501
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 23, 2017
    Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Miguel Angel Lavenant, Pro Se
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

■ In these consolidated appeals, Miguel Angel Lavenant appeals pro se from two district court orders. In Appeal No. 15-50307, we affirm. In Appeal No. 15-50501, we dismiss.

In Appeal No. 15-50307, Lavenant appeals the district court’s order rejecting for filing his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) motion for return of property. The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting the motion for failing to comply in several respects with the Southern District of California’s Local Rules. See United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2009) (only in rare cases will this court question the district court’s exercise of discretion in applying local rules). Lavenant’s arguments concerning the merits of his motion are, therefore, not properly before this court.

In Appeal No. 15-50501, Lavenant appeals the district court’s order denying his appeal of the magistrate’s order rejecting his motion to quash an indictment in the District of Delaware. As the government contends, we lack jurisdiction to review the propriety of an indictment issued in the District of Delaware. See 28 U.S.C. § 1294. Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to dismiss this appeal.

Appeal No. 15-50307: AFFIRMED; Appeal No. 15-50501: DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     