Case ID: f-appx_144/html/0274-01.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

Commonwealth of PENNSYLVANIA v. Thomas M. BOLICK, Appellant.
    No. 05-1917.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Sept. 13, 2005.
    Decided Sept. 20, 2005.
    William C. Cole, Office of District Attorney, Sunbury, PA, for Appellee.
    Thomas M. Bolick, Jr., Richboro, PA, pro se.
    Before SLOVITER, BARRY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
   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.

After a review of the record, we will affirm for the reasons stated by the District 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. 
      
      . 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 to the denial of the Notice of Removal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).