[UNPUBLISHED]

Dennis Mentzos appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) motion for the return of his seized property. See Fed. R.Crim. R. 41(g) (person aggrieved by deprivation of property may move for return of property and court “must receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion”). In light of the additional information provided by the parties to supplement the appellate record, we affirm the district court’s judgment under 8th Cir. R. 47B. See Stokors S.A. v. Morrison, 147 F.3d 759, 760 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1998) (expanding record because it allows more complete understanding of events at issue); see also United States v. Timley, 443 F.3d 615, 625 (8th Cir. 2006) (government, by way of letter, authorized return of defendant’s property, obviating any need for hearing on matter).