Former commodity trader Martin Armstrong's two-decade legal battle with federal regulators appeared to be coming to a close in 2017.

The self-taught economic forecaster (whose computer model was built on the number pi) was incarcerated for 11 years over financial fraud and contempt of court. He was allowed to review the contents of storage lockers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania for personal items the government has been holding on to since it first began seizing items from Armstrong's home and office in 1999.

According to court records, Armstrong and his son were accompanied by Ross Neglia, identified in court papers as a paralegal working for counsel to the receiver in the case, O'Melveny & Myers. What followed resulted in a court dispute that made its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On Tuesday, the panel—composed of Circuit Judges Robert Sack, Peter Hall and Christopher Droney—issued a summary order in support of the decision by U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District Court to finally close the case, despite Armstrong's claims he was denied access to personal property from the storage lockers.

According to the panel, Neglia spent two days with Armstrong in the storage facilities. In a follow-up email cited by the panel, Armstrong thanked Neglia for allowing him to take personal items with him. He then asked for a price quote for delivering “the whole lot” to Florida, where he could “just sort out everything here.”

“The Receiver, understandably, did not arrange for such shipping, and no further steps were taken by Armstrong,” the panel noted.

Armstrong did take photo albums, travel mugs and a stamp catalog from the storage facility, according to the panel.

Castel closed the case, allowing the receiver to finalize the handling of what property remained in its possession, in October 2017. All told, the receiver distributed about $80 million to claim holders, according to court filings.

On appeal, Armstrong claimed the Castel abused his discretion, arguing that the plan of final distribution and a consent decree that Armstrong agreed to “required the Receiver to return Armstrong's personal property.”

“Armstrong objected to closure of the receivership on the grounds that his personal possessions had not been returned to him, as required by the Final Judgment,” Armstrong argued in his appellate brief. “In denying Armstrong's objections and granting the Receiver's motion for case closure and liquidation of his personal property, including the contents of the storage lockers, the district court negated its own prior order.”

In the six-page summary order, the panel found Armstrong claims weren't supported by the very consent judgment Armstrong relied on. As the panel noted, no part of the agreement “imposed any obligation” on the court. Further, Armstrong himself never took action before the district court to identify assets, for any hearings to be held, or for an order to have his personal property returned.

Armstrong was represented on appeal by attorney Thomas Sjoblom. He did not respond to a request for comment.

A spokeswoman for the Securities and Exchange Commission did not respond to a request for comment.

Related: