2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 11-12-2009 

# U SA v . F rede rick H. B anks P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3168

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . F r e de r ick H. B ank s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 266. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/2661

HLD- 0 1 1 ( Oc t o b e r 2 0 0 9 ) NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 3168

___________ 

### UN IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E RIC A ,

v. FREDERI CK H. BANKS, Appe l l ant

____________________________________ OnAp pealfrom

the Unite d S tate s Dis tric t Court f o r th e WesternD istrict o f P enn sylv an ia ( D. C. Cri m . No. 03- c r - 00245- 001) Dist ri ct Judg e: Ho no ra

ble Nora B. Fis cher

____________________________________ S ub mittedf

o r P o ssib le S umm ary

A ctio nP ursu ant to T h irdC ircu it LA R 2 7.4 andI. O.P. 10 .6 and C on si derati onof Whether a Certific at e of App ea la

bili ty is Requ ir ed Oc t obe r 30, 2009 Befo re : SCIRICA , Chief Judg e, WEIS and G AR TH , Circuit Judg es (Opinionfile d: No vem ber 12, 20 09 )

_________ OP INI ON

_________ PER CURI AM.

Fr eder i ck H . B anks , a fe der al i nm at e, appea l s fr om t he deni al of hi s m ot i on tit led , “M o tio n to R e c u se N o ra B a rryF isc h e r f ro m H e a rin g M o tio n to V a c a te; M o tio n toT o th e e x ten t th a t B a n k s n e e d s a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili tyto p u rsu e th is 1 appea l , i ti s deni ed. R eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d notdebat e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s t at ed re a s o n s f o r d e n y in g B a n k s ’s m o tio n . S e e S la c k v . M c D a n ie l, 5 2 9 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 ). 2 V aca t e, SetA s i de, and C or r ectSent ence under28 U . S. C . §2255; M ot i on t o M odi fy S e n t e n c e f

o rCl e a rErr o r1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( b ) . ” ( Di s t r i c tCo u r tDo c k e tNo . 4 5 9 ) . By O r derent er ed J ul y14, 2009, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the r eques tforr ecus al , expl ai ned t hatB anks ’ s m ot i on i s pr ocedur al l yi m pr opert o t he ext entt hatB anks s eeks t o i ni t i at e a ci vi l act i on agai ns tnum er ous purpor t ed def endant s , and deni ed col l at er al r el i ef t o t he ext entt hatB anks s oughtt o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve 28 U . S. C . § 2255 m ot i on w i t hout havi ng fi r s ts ecur i ng perm i s s i on fr om t hi s C our tt o do s o.

T h e D istri ct C o u rtthere af ter rece ived B an k s’s “R ep ly ” to th e g o v ern m en t’ s resp o n se in o p p o sit ion to h is m o ti o n . B yO rde r en tered Ju ly2 0 , 2 0 0 9 , the D istri ct C o u rt deni ed B anks ’ s r epl yas m ootgi ven thatt he C our thad al r eadydeni ed the under l y i ng m ot i on. T o t he ext entt hatB anks ’ s “R epl y ” coul d be vi ew ed as a mot i on for r econs i der at i on of the J ul y14 O r der , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed r econs i der at i on. B anks tim e ly f ile d th is a p p e a l. T h is C o u rth as a p p ell ate jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . A fter a c a re f u l re v iew o f

th e re c o rd , w e w ill su m m a rilya f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t in acc or dance w i t h T hi r d C i r cui tI nt ernal O per at i ng Pr ocedur e C hapt er10. 6. 1

T h e re c o rd re f

lec ts th a t a ju ryin th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia convi ct ed B anks i n 2004 of m ai l fr aud, cr i m i nal copyr i ghti nfr i ngement , m oney3

l aun deri ng , utt eri ng and po sses si ng cou nter fei tor forged secu ri t i es, and w i t ness t amper i ng. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d B anks t o s i xt ym ont hs of i m pr i s onm entpl us three y ea rs of

su p erv ised release . T h is C o u rtaf firm ed , see U n it ed S tat es v . V am p ir e N at i on, 451 F. 3d 189 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , and the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tdeni ed cert i or ar i r evi ew . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed B anks ’ s fi r s t28 U . S. C . § 2255 m ot i on on t he m er i t s , and i n D ece m ber2007, t hi s C our tdeni ed B anks a ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t y . See C . A . N o. 06- 3671.

B a n k s h a s c o n tin u e d to f ile n u m e ro u s m o tio n s in th e D istric t C o u rt, i ncl udi ng t he mot i on t hati s t he s ubj ectof the pr es entappea l . T he D i s t r i ctC our tw as corr ectt hat , i ns ofaras B anks s oughtt o i ni t i at e a c i vi l l aw s ui tt hr ough t he fi l i ng of another § 2 25 5 m oti on , his fi l i ng w as procedu ral l yi m proper. B ank s, an ex peri enced pro se lit ig a n t, i s n o d o u b t aw a re o f th e m a n n e r in w h ich to c o m m e n c e a c iv il p ro c e e d in g in f e d e ra l co u rt, an d th e D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d n o e rro r in its re f u sa l to a llo w B a n k s to pur s ue ci vi l cl ai m s i n connec t i on w i t h t he pos t - convi ct i on r evi ew of hi s cr i m i nal convi ct i on. I ns ofaras B anks s oughtt o s t y l e hi s § 2255 fi l i ng as a ci vi l s ui ts o t hathe c o u ld n a m e Ju d g e F isc h e r a s a d e f e n d a n t an d se e k re c u sa l, th a t ac tio n w a s p a ten tly i m pr oper . I ndeed, ot hert han mer el ynami ng J udge Fi s cheri n hi s pr opos ed ci vi l act i on, B anks offe r ed no al l egat i on atal l t o ques t i on J udge Fi s cher ’ s i m par t i al i t yi n pr es i di ng o v e r th e se p o st-c o n v ictio n p ro c e e d in g s. T h e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyd e n ied re c u sa l.4 F in a lly , as th e D istric t C o u rt h a s a d v ise d B a n k s p re v io u sly , h e m u st o b tain author i zat i on fr om t hi s C our tbefor e he c an pr ocee d w i t h a “s econd ors ucce s s i ve” § 2255 a tta c k . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ; U n ite d S ta te s v . M ille r, 1 9 7 F .3 d 6 4 4 , 6 4 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). B anks ’ s var i ous ar gum ent s bas ed on hi s al l eged s t atus as a Lakot a Si oux I ndi an do not exempthi m fr om havi ng t o compl yw i t h t he l aw governi ng t he fi l i ng of s econd or su c c e ss iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n s. A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in re f u sin g to cons i dert he unauthor i zed § 2255 mot i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tl i kew i s e comm i t t ed no err or i n deny i ng r econs i der at i on i ns ofaras B anks ’ s “R epl y ” w as l i ber al l ycons t rued as a mot i on forr econs i der at i on of the J ul y14 O r der ; B anks offe r ed no vi abl e gr ound upon w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tcoul d have r econs i der ed i t s r efus al t o ent er t ai n hi s m ot i on.

I n s u m, b e c a u s e t h i s a p p e a l p r e s e n t s “ n o s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n , ” 3 d Ci r . I OP C h . 1 0 .6 , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t w ill b e a f f ir m e d .