Blazevich

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Paul Blazevich seeks review of the district court’s October 16, 2007 order-denying his motion for production of evidence for in camera review.

Because the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

In the course of his criminal proceedings and requests for post conviction relief, appellant has repeatedly requested the district court to order the government to produce a filmstrip for in camera review. Appellant is convinced that the filmstrip contains exculpatory evidence. Based on affidavits from government agents that the filmstrip in question does not contain exculpatory evidence, the district court has repeatedly denied appellant’s request. On appeal, we have considered and rejected appellant’s claim at least twice. See United States v. Blazevich, 221 Fed.Appx. 597 (9th Cir.2007); United States v. Blazevich, 38 Fed.Appx. 359, 361 (9th Cir.2002).

In its October 16, 2007 order, the district court correctly determined that appellant sought the same relief as he had previously…