Background
Anson Chi pleaded guilty to possession of an unregistered firearm and malicious use of explosive materials. He received a total sentence of 240 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.
In July and August 2025, Chi filed motions under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), seeking the return of firearms and ammunition seized by the government. The district court denied the motions because the government had disposed of the property in early 2025, before Chi sought its return.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. It first concluded that Chi had abandoned any challenge to the district court’s stated basis for denying his motions because he did not identify an error in that ruling or adequately brief the issue.
The court also held that the motions failed on the merits because the government no longer possessed the firearms and ammunition. Sovereign immunity barred an award of monetary damages under Rule 41(g), so Chi could not recover the firearms’ value through that rule. The court further determined that Chi had not shown a violation of his due process rights.
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 41(g) motion cannot compel the return of property that the government no longer possesses.
- Sovereign immunity bars monetary damages under Rule 41(g), including compensation for the value of disposed property.
- An appellant abandons an issue by failing to identify and adequately brief an alleged error in the district court’s ruling.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the limited relief available under Rule 41(g). When the government has already disposed of seized property, the rule does not provide a substitute damages remedy for its value.
It also illustrates the independent importance of appellate briefing: even where the court addresses the merits, failure to meaningfully challenge the district court’s reasoning can itself require affirmance.