Pennsylvania v. Bolick

144 F. App'x 274
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedSeptember 20, 2005
Docket05-1917
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 144 F. App'x 274 (Pennsylvania v. Bolick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pennsylvania v. Bolick, 144 F. App'x 274 (3d Cir. 2005).

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In 1981, Appellant Thomas M. Bolick was convicted in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, of bank robbery and sentenced to a term of imprisonment (2$ to 10 years) that has long since expired. In recent years, and despite the expiration of his sentence, Bolick has sought to challenge his conviction by seeking post-conviction review in state court. After his last such unsuccessful attempt, Bolick filed a Notice of Removal in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking to bring his criminal proceeding (or at least the post-conviction review proceedings) to federal court.

By order entered March 16, 2005, the District Court, inter alia, vacated the Notice of Removal and dismissed the action with prejudice, finding a lack of federal jurisdiction and noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1441 provides no basis for the removal of the state criminal proceeding. Bolick timely filed this appeal. 1

After a review of the record, we will affirm for the reasons stated by the Dis *275 trict Court. In sum, the removal notice was improper and correctly rejected. Bolick has presented no viable argument on appeal to question the propriety of the District Court’s judgment.

1

. Bolick also timely filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District Court denied by Order entered March 23, 2005. Because Bolick did not file a timely appeal or amended notice of appeal from the March 23 Order, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of reconsideration, and therefore confine our review *275 to the denial of the Notice of Removal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bolick v. Commonwealth
69 A.3d 1267 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
144 F. App'x 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennsylvania-v-bolick-ca3-2005.