Case ID: f-appx_441/html/0614-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Olimpiu Constantine NEDELCU; Silviu Lucretiu Nedelcu, Defendants-Appellants.
    Nos. 11-4154, 11-4155.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Nov. 23, 2011.
    Diana Hagen, Esq., Office of the United States Attorney, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Olimpiu Constantine Nedelcu, Salt Lake City, UT, pro se.
    Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Defendants, appearing pro se, appeal the denial of their motions to seal or expunge the record of a 2005 case in which they were both convicted of entering an aircraft or aircraft area by fraudulent means in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1036(a). In these motions, Defendants expressed remorse and offered evidence of their difficulties arising from having their convictions on record. The district court denied their requests on the ground that since Defendants’ felony convictions had not been set aside, the district court did not have ancillary jurisdiction to seal the record on purely equitable grounds. See United States v. Pinto, 1 F.3d 1069, 1070 (10th Cir.1993). Defendants appealed. This court consolidated their appeals.

After a thorough review of the record, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Defendants’ motions for substantially the same reason given by the district court. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.