With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on November 19, 2003, the District Court entered a final order of forfeiture. Jackman appealed, and this Court dismissed the appeal as frivolous. See C.A. No. 03-4607. On March 24, 2006, Jackman filed the instant Rule 41(g) motion. On March 27, 2006, the District Court denied the motion. Jackman filed a timely notice of appeal, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s decision for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambers, 192 F.3d 374, 376 (3d Cir.1999). Because the firearms have been forfeited to the government and be cause Jackman is legally prohibited from possessing firearms, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jack-man’s motion with respect to the firearms. See United States v. Howell, 425 F.3d 971 (11th Cir.2005)(<HOLDING>); United States v. Felici, 208 F.3d 667, 670

A: holding the defendant was a convicted felon within the purview of the federal statute prohibiting the receiving and possession of firearms by a convicted felon where the defendants prior conviction was based on an idaho state probated sentence
B: holding that defendant was not entitled to partially suspended sentence as a previously convicted felon
C: holding that a convicted felon may sue a municipal government to recover the value of seized firearms that he owned
D: holding that a convicted felon is not entitled to have firearms returned held in trust or sold for his profit
D.