Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-04035/USCOURTS-ca3-15-04035-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frederick H. Banks
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

CLD-238 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-4035

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

FREDERICK H. BANKS,

Appellant

_______________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Crim. No. 2-03-cr-00245-001)

District Judge: Honorable Nora B. Fischer

_______________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to

Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

April 28, 2016

Before: FISHER, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 5, 2016)

___________

OPINION*

___________

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-4035 Document: 003112283977 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2016
2

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Frederick Banks, was convicted on charges of, inter alia, mail fraud and 

criminal copyright infringement, and we affirmed. See United States v. Vampire Nation, 

451 F.3d 189, 209 (3d Cir. 2006). The District Court later denied Banks’ motion 

challenging his convictions and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and we denied his 

request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”). See C.A. No. 06-3671. Since then, 

Banks has filed motions and petitions with the District Court too numerous to outline 

(well over sixty), and those filings have generated nearly twenty appeals.

Some of Banks’ filings have addressed issues concerning the revocation of his 

supervised release, while other motions and petitions argued that the evidence against 

him was fabricated and that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over him for one reason 

or another. He has also filed motions and petitions seeking monetary damages from a 

multitude of individuals involved in his criminal case. The District Court denied each of 

these petitions and motions, and we have summarily affirmed or denied a COA in each 

resultant appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Banks, 372 F. App’x 237, 242 (3d Cir. 2010); 

United States v. Banks, 351 F. App’x 608, 610 (3d Cir. 2009); United States v. Banks, 

582 F. App’x 86, 87 (3d Cir. 2014).

At issue here is a submission that Banks titled “Pearls Before Swine.” The 

District Court accurately described Banks’ submission as “depicting various handwritten 

figures and rambling references to a variety of individuals including Judge Mark Hornak, 

Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy, and Assistant United States Attorney Robert 

Case: 15-4035 Document: 003112283977 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2016
3

Cessar.” See D. Ct. Order at 1. The District Court ordered that the submission not be 

made part of the docket on the court’s cm/ecf docket insofar as the “document is not a 

pleading, motion or any other document requiring the Court’s attention . . . .” Id. This 

timely appeal followed.1

Having reviewed Banks’ submission, we conclude that the District Court 

committed no error in directing that it not be made part of the electronic record. Banks 

offers no support for his contention that the District Court erred as a matter of law and 

fact by failing to construe his submission as a “motion to take judicial notice of certain 

unlawful actions that affect this case and other related cases,” see Notice of Appeal at 1, 

and we know of none. No such request appears in the document. Banks’ submission of 

hand-drawn figures and accompanying captions such as “The Village Vomit,” and riddles 

and questions posed to “Hey Pup,” does not purport to set forth any argument, claim, or 

request for relief. Even construing Banks’ pro se submission liberally, see Haines v. 

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), we do not hesitate to agree with the District Court’s 

determination that Banks’ document is not a type of pleading requiring attention by the 

court, nor does it require a place on the court’s cm/ecf docket.

 

1

 Banks simultaneously filed a motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s order, 

which the District Court denied in an order entered on December 28, 2015. Because 

Banks has not separately appealed that order, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).

Case: 15-4035 Document: 003112283977 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2016
4

Accordingly, because the appeal presents no substantial question, we will 

summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 

10.6. 

Case: 15-4035 Document: 003112283977 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/05/2016