Rickey Jackson appeals the district court’s 1 order, entered after a bench trial, granting in part and denying in part his motion for return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), which authorizes a person whose property was seized by the government to petition the district court for its return. Following careful review, we conclude that the district court, after resolving conflicting testimony and assessing witness credibility, did not err returning one CD that had been seized by the government to Jackson, in finding that the remaining CDs and certain paperwork had been lawfully returned to the grandmother of the lessee of the vehicle, and in finding insufficient evidence that the government seized a particular duffle bag. See Jackson v. United States, 526 F.3d 394, 396 (8th Cir. 2008) (on appeal from Rule 41(g) proceeding after bench trial, appellate court reviews district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for clear error); Richardson v. Sugg, 448 F.3d 1046, 1052 (8th Cir. 2006) (due regard is given to district *143 court’s judgment of witness credibility, and choice between two permissible views of evidence is not clearly erroneous). Finding no merit to Jackson’s other arguments, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.