
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Theodore John KACZYNSKI, aka FC, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-10495.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 18, 2011.
    
      Robert Steven Lapham, David Taylor Shelledy, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Theodore John Kaczynski, Florence, CO, pro se.
    Erin Jolene Radekin, Law Office of Erin Radekin, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In a prior appeal, we affirmed the district court’s proposed plan for a judicial sale of certain items belonging to Theodore Kaczynski and remanded for further proceedings. United States v. Kaczynski, 551 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir.2009). Following remand, Kaczynski now appeals pro se from the district court’s order of September 17, 2010, which clarified how such sale would be conducted.

Kaczynski claims his designee should have ninety days prior to the sale of his original writings to examine the copies of his writings provided by the government. We take judicial notice that the internet sale of Kaczynski’s belongings has already occurred. Bob Egelko, Auction Raises $232,24-6 for Attack Victims, S.F. Chronicle, June 4, 2011, at Cl. Thus, we are unable to grant Kaczynski the relief he requests; and this claim is rendered moot. See Sandidge v. State of Washington, 813 F.2d 1025, 1025 (9th Cir.1987) (“A case is moot if the reviewing court can no longer grant effective relief.”).

Kaczynski further requests that the government be ordered to provide him with a complete copy of not only his own writings, but of any writings by others which were seized from his Montana cabin. This request lacks any legal basis and appears to be founded on a misreading of our prior opinion. Our prior opinion addressed only whether the forced sale of Kaezynski’s personal writings violated the First Amendment. 551 F.3d at 1123-29. In concluding it did not, we explained that Kaezynski’s ability to communicate his thoughts was not impaired by the loss of the originals, and noted in passing that the district court had already ordered the government to provide Kaczynski (through his designated recipient) with copies of any page he had not already received in legible form. Id. at 1127. We were not imposing a new and broader requirement on the government, but merely restating what the district court had already required of it. Id. (quoting United States v. Kaczynski, 446 F.Supp.2d 1146, 1154 n. 12 (E.D.Cal.2006)). The district court’s refusal to provide copies of the seized writings of others therefore did not violate our directive on remand.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . The district court instead ordered that the government should maintain a copy of Kac-zynski’s writings for one year from the date it supplies a complete copy to Kaczynski’s des-ignee, an alternative plan proposed by Kac-zynski.
     
      
      . The United States' pending Motion for Summary Affirmance and Opposition to Appellant’s Motion for Stay is denied as moot.
     