Itzhak Shalom appeals from the district court’s order denying in part and granting in part his Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g) motion for the return of seized property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Shalom v. United States, No. CA-04-311BEL (D.Md. Nov. 8, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED