Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Curtis REYNOLDS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-24
Citations: 600 F. App'x 554
Docket Number: No. 13-30314
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Curtis REYNOLDS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 554–555

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Curtis REYNOLDS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-30314.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2015.
Filed April 24, 2015.
Jack Haycock, Assistant U.S., USPO-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Pocatello, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Curtis Reynolds, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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.
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 1864, 1869 (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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.