United States v. Michael Reynolds , 600 F. App'x 554 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30314
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:05-mj-05947-MHW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MICHAEL CURTIS REYNOLDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Mikel H. Williams, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Michael Curtis Reynolds appeals pro se from the district
court’s order granting his motion under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Reynolds contends that the district court erred in failing to consider his
arguments challenging the legality of the search and seizure of his property. The
district court did not err in refusing to consider these arguments. Because
Reynolds’s criminal proceedings are complete, the legality of the underlying
search and seizure is irrelevant for purposes of a Rule 41(g) motion. See United
States v. Martinson, 809 F.2d 1364, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987) (recognizing, in the
context of Rule 41, that after criminal proceedings are completed, “the legality of
the search and seizure is no longer an issue”). Moreover, the legality of the search
is irrelevant because the government does not contest that Reynolds is entitled to
the return of his property and, in fact, has returned Reynolds’s property to him.
All pending motions are DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-30314