property and that he has “clean hands” with respect to that property. Id. The First Circuit has held that “a Rule 41(g) motion is properly denied if the defendant is not entitled to lawful possession of the seized property, the property is contraband or subject to forfeiture, or the government’s need for the property as evidence continues.” United States v. Pierre, 484 F.3d 75, 87 (1st Cir.2007) (quotation omitted). If the government wishes to retain the property, it must have and state a legitimate reason for doing so. United States v. Potes Ramirez, 260 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir.2001). The government is not obligated to return property that it no longer possesses, but it must provide some evidentiary support for its claim that it no longer has possession of the property. See id. (<HOLDING>). In this case, Garcon’s opening brief does not
holding where 1 the government provided the defendant with all the necessary drugmaking materials 2 the government provided instructions on how to make the drugs and 3 the defendant sought out the materials and help from the undercover government agents the case set the outer limits to which the government may go in the quest to ferret out and prosecute crimes but the governments conduct did not rise to the level of a due process violation holding that the district court did not err in instructing the jury not to draw any adverse inferences from the governments failure to call a witness because the witness did not have a relationship with the government such that one would expect him to give testimony in favor of the government holding that even if the district court had erred by not allowing the plaintiff leave to file a reply brief any error was harmless because it did not prejudice the plaintiffs rights holding that the district court erred when it relied on the governments representation that the property sought by the defendant had been destroyed because the government did not submit any evidence of the propertys destruction holding that the district court erred when it relied on neuschafer for the proposition that dismissal of mixed habeas petitions is not the rule in the ninth circuit 