Court Opinion

ID: 9368683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-06 18:00:39.434598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:10.100246
License: Public Domain

CLD-071                                                         NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 22-2969
                                       ___________

                            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                             v.

                               JELANI C. SOLOMON,
                                                 Appellant
                       ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Pennsylvania
                     (D.C. Criminal Action No. 2-05-cr-00385-001)
                      District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
                      ____________________________________

                       Submitted for Possible Summary Action
                  Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                   January 19, 2023
         Before: GREENAWAY, JR., MATEY and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

                             (Opinion filed February 6, 2023)
                                       _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
       Jelani Solomon is a federal prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment. His

repetitive and often frivolous filings have led the District Court to enter at least two

orders directing its Clerk to reject any filings by Solomon in his criminal case that are not

preauthorized by the Court. See United States v. Solomon, 828 F. App’x 86, 87 (3d Cir.

2020) (noting that Solomon did not appeal those orders). At least three of Solomon’s

prior challenges related to an administrative forfeiture obtained by the Drug Enforcement

Agency in 2006. The District Court rejected those three challenges and, although

Solomon did not appeal the first ruling, he appealed the other two and we affirmed. See

United States v. Solomon, 839 F. App’x 679, 680 (3d Cir. 2021); United States v.

Solomon, 533 F. App’x 77, 79-80 (3d Cir. 2013).

       Solomon later sought to bring a fourth such challenge by filing with the District

Court the motion at issue here—i.e., a motion for preauthorization to file a motion under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) in order to challenge the forfeiture as “void.” Solomon argued,

as he had before, that he did not receive adequate notice of the forfeiture. This time,

however, he relied on a purported concession by the Government that notice had been

inadequate. The District Court denied authorization to file the Rule 60(b)(4) motion

because it did not state any basis for relief.

       Solomon appeals, and we will summarily affirm because this appeal presents no

substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 (2011); 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. We make that

determination largely for the reasons explained by the District Court. We add that

                                                 2
Solomon’s reliance on the Government’s purported concession is doubly frivolous. The

statement on which Solomon relies was not a concession, and it was available to him

during his previous challenge.1

       For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

1
  Solomon’s last challenge took the form of a “declaration of factual averments” (ECF
No. 1036), the denial of which we affirmed in Solomon, 839 F. App’x at 680. Solomon
now relies on a statement in the Government’s response in opposition to that filing. (ECF
No. 1045.) That statement—“the notice did not reach the Claimant until after the 60-day
statutory deadline”—was part of a quotation from a different case. (ECF No. 1045 at 7)
(quoting United States v. $4,340.00 in U.S. Currency, No. C16-40I8, 2016 WL 3552242,
at *3 (N.D. Iowa June 23, 2016)). It is not a concession that Solomon did not receive
adequate notice in this case and, even if it were, it was available to him during his prior
challenge. We note, once again, that we repeatedly have rejected Solomon’s belated
efforts to challenge the forfeiture for inadequate notice. See Solomon, 839 F. App’x at
680 n.1 (citing Solomon, 533 F. App’x at 78-79).
                                              3