Samuel Acosta appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) for return of personal property. Upon careful review of the relevant record, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying the motion or failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. See Jackson v. United States, 526 F.3d 394, 396 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also grant appellee’s motion to strike a portion of Acosta’s reply brief. See FTC v. Neiswonger, 580 F.3d 769, 775 (8th Cir. 2009).