Whether the district court had ancillary jurisdiction over property seized during the criminal investigation

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : 1. Whether the district court had ancillary ‘jurisdiction over . ‘property seized during the criminal investigation of an offense prosecuted in said district court? : . 2. Whether the United States was ‘in possession of properties, , pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16, when the propertiés were seized during. the criminal investigation of an offense ; prosecuted in federal court, included in the United States ' discovery to Augustin, vouched for during closing argument at : trial, presented in the United States case-in-chief, and obtained from and helonged to Augustin? 3. Whether a claim for money damages can be asserted when the. United : States is held responsible for lost or illegally forfeited property in the United States constructive possession? a : . . or . . , : Whether the Fed./R. Crim. P. 41 Motion for Return of Property . should have been construed as a Bivens action once the United States admitted it no longer possessed the property that was in its constructive. possession? _ .