MEMORANDUM **

Jair de Jesus Alvarez-Ramirez appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his motion for return of seized property. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 906 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.

Appellant filed his motion for return of seized property under 28 U.S.C. § 2465. However, he is not eligible for relief under section 2465 because appellant did not receive a forfeiture judgment against the government. See 28 U.S.C. § 2465(a). Accordingly, appellant’s motion is more properly considered as a motion for return of property, under Fed. R.Crim. Pro. R. 41(g).

Because a default judgment was entered over four years ago, appellant is not entitled to an Rule 41(g) equitable remedy. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 873-75 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.1