MEMORANDUM ***

*722 Joseph Hall appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure section 41(e) motion for the return of seized currency. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hall contends that the government failed to comply with the due process notice requirement because it failed to ensure that he was personally served with the notice of the pending forfeiture proceedings. The record reflects that, by delivering a certified-mail notice of pending administrative forfeiture proceedings addressed to Hall at the detention center where he was incarcerated and receiving a receipt confirming delivery, the government complied with the due process notice requirements for property seizure. See Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 168-71, 122 S.Ct. 694, 151 L.Ed.2d 597 (2002).

AFFIRMED.