filed his Rule 41(e) motion after the criminal proceedings against him had been concluded. The novel question presented by this unusual circumstance is whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider Martinez’s motion, even though all criminal proceedings against Martinez had ended. We have never addressed this exact issue. We have, however, suggested that equitable relief may be available in a context similar to a Rule 41(e) motion. See, e.g., United States v. Eubanks, 169 F.3d 672, 674 (11th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (affirming the dismissal of a Rule 41(e) motion for return of property while stating that exercise of equitable discretion to review agency forfeiture decisions may be appropriate “under limited circumstances”); In re $67,170.00, 901 F.2d 1540, 1545 (11th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Castro, 883 F.2d 1018, 1020
holding that it is an abuse of discretion to make errors of law or clear errors of factual determination holding that equitable relief is only appropriate where legal remedies are inadequate holding that private plaintiffs can seek equitable relief under rico holding that cumulative  effect of multiple errors worked to deprive defendant of fair trial although  some errors standing alone would be subject to plain error review and others might be harmless holding that equitable jurisdiction might be appropriate when a petitioners failure to properly seek legal relief resulted from errors of procedure and form or the governments own misconduct