to lawful possession of the property. The court shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision of the motion. If the motion is granted, the property shall be returned to the movant, although reasonable conditions may be imposed to protect access and use of the propert ware of the fact that he or she has been deprived of valuable property before twenty years have passed. We hold that the government has met its burden as to the first prong of laches because of Wilson’s inexcusable delay. The government has also shown that prejudice clearly resulted from Wilson’s delay in bringing the Rule 41(e) proceeding: the record of the underlying criminal proceeding has been lost, hindering the government’s ability to defend against the Rule 41(e) proceeding. Cf. id. at 1219 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that laches bars Wilson’s Rule
holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike when movant failed to show prejudice holding that dismissal of indictment was abuse of discretion when delay attributable to the government was twelve months holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to extend time for service of process under rule 4m holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply laches where the only prejudice shown by the government was attributable to its own delay rather than to that of the movant