Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0745-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel R. BUCZEK, Claimant-Appellant, and Bernard Von Nothaus, Defendant.
    No. 16-7639
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 23, 2017
    Decided: May 25, 2017
    
      Daniel R. Buczek, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Bain-Creed, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel R. Buczek appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the court’s prior order dismissing Buczek’s petition claiming an ownership interest in certain property subject to criminal forfeiture. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Buczek leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Buczek, No. 5:09-cr-00027-RLV-DCK-1 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 20, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED 
      
       Buczek’s motion was self-styled, in part, as a “Writ of Error Objecting & Dismissing Order of Richard L. Voorhees.” The district court construed this motion, in which Buczek also sought sanctions against the federal prosecutors involved in the underlying criminal matter, as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. Buczek does not contest this characterization on appeal.