Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel R. BUCZEK, Claimant-Appellant, and Bernard Von Nothaus, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-25
Citations: 689 F. App'x 745
Docket Number: No. 16-7639
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel R. BUCZEK, Claimant-Appellant, and Bernard Von Nothaus, Defendant.
Judges: Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 745–746

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.