MEMORANDUM DECISION

B. LYNN WINMILL, Chief District Judge.

INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND

Defendant Michael Curtis Reynolds appeals the Magistrate Judge's order denying his Rule 60(d)(3) motion. See Dkt. 63. For the reasons explained below, the Court will affirm the Magistrate Judge's order.

In July 2007, a Pennsylvania federal court jury convicted Reynolds of five terrorism-related charges. Reynolds was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment. The Third Circuit affirmed his conviction in March 2010. See United States v. Reynolds 374 Fed. Appx. 356 (3d Cir. 2010). Reynolds' subsequent motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was dismissed. See Dkt. 33, at 3.

The District of Idaho became involved in Mr. Reynolds' case in December 2005. At that time, it received various documents related to the Pennsylvania federal court proceedings, including a warrant to search a motel room in Pocatello, Idaho. See Dkt. 1. Defendant was arrested in Idaho and appeared before this Court for his initial appearance, at which time he waived a detention hearing and his right to a Rule 5(c)(3) hearing. Reynolds was then remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal for transport to Pennsylvania.

After Reynolds was transported to Pennsylvania, this case remained silent for over seven years. Then, in January 2013, Reynolds filed a Motion for Return of Property in this Court. See Dkt. 8. The United States Magistrate Judge granted the motion for the return of property, but denied Reynolds' motions relating to the legality of the underlying search or of his conviction. See Order, Dkt. 38. Reynolds appealed, and in April 2015, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order. See USCA Mem., Dkt. 59.

Shortly after the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order, Reynolds filed another motion in this Court entitled "Fraud Upon the Court 60(d)(3) Motion." See Dkt. 61. The Magistrate Judge denied the motion, observing that it "raise[d] the same issues previously litigated" and, further, that "the Ninth Circuit has affirmed this Court's decision." Dkt. 63, at 2. Reynolds again appealed. This time, however, the Ninth Circuit did not hear the appeal, indicating instead that this Court should resolve the appeal in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3402. See Mar. 10, 2016 USCA Order, Dkt. 68.

In keeping with the Ninth Circuit's order, this Court established a briefing schedule. Reynolds did not timely submit an opening brief or any other appellate documents, though he did write a letter to Court staff concerning his attempt to track down a Dodge Shadow, which he says was "taken originally on Dec. 5th, 2005, from Petitioner." Oct. 18, 2016 Letter from Reynolds, Dkt. 73.

DISCUSSION

This Court has independently reviewed the entire record in this matter, including the Magistrate Judge's July 11, 2013 and January 12, 2016 Orders. See Dkts. 33, 63. In the January 12, 2016 order — the order at issue on this appeal — the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Reynold's Rule 60(d)(3) Motion simply rehashes issues that had already been litigated. Specifically, that motion questioned the probable cause for the search warrants, the manner in which the property was seized, and whether it was properly seized. The Magistrate Judge had already ruled on those issues and, more significantly, the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the Magistrate Judge's orders. See Apr. 24, 2015 United States v. Reynolds, Dkt. 39-1.

Given the Ninth Circuit's earlier ruling, this Court AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge's January 12, 2016 Order.

AFFIRMED.