ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RETURN OF VEHICLE, CONSTRUED AS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO. 33)

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.

On June 4, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge denied Anastasia Purnell's ("Petitioner") motion requesting that the above-mentioned vehicle subject to seizure be returned to her. ECF No. 10. On August 27, 2019, upon Petitioner's request for de novo review by a district judge, this Court affirmed the magistrate judge's ruling. ECF No 18. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on September 4, 2019. ECF No. 22. On October 22, 2019, Petitioner again filed a motion requesting that the above-mentioned vehicle subject to seizure be returned to her. ECF No. 33. The Court construes this motion as a motion for reconsideration of this Court's prior ruling affirming the magistrate judge's denial of her request to return the property.

"As a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997). A notice of appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction if at the time it was filed there was then a pending motion for reconsideration. United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. R & D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001). Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(B)(I), such a notice of appeal does not become effective, and the district court does not lose jurisdiction, until the district court rules on all motions for reconsideration filed no later than 28 days after judgment is entered. Because Petitioner's October 22, 2019 motion was not filed within 28 days of the August 27, 2019 order (the most recent possible order she wishes the court to reconsider), this Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner's October 22 motion, which is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.