Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

In these consolidated appeals, Barton Joseph Adams and Josephine Artillaga Adams appeal the district court’s order denying then1 motion for return of seized property. We affirm.

We review for abuse of discretion the district courts denial of a motion for return of property. United States v. Chambers, 192 F.3d 374, 376 (3d Cir. 1999). We may affirm on any ground appearing in the record. Bryant v. Bell Atl. Md., Inc., 288 F.3d 124, 132 (4th Cir. 2002). The Adams’ motion for return of seized property was barred by the statute of limita *37 tions because it was not filed within five years of the date of final publication of the notice of seizure. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(1), (3) (2012). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Adams v. United States, No. 3:15-cv-00127-JPB-RWT (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 6, 2016); United States v. Adams, No. 3:09-mj-00024-JPB-JES-1 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 6, 2016); United States v. Adams, No. 3:08-cr-00077-JPB-KWT-1 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 6, 2016). We deny the motion to expedite decision and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED