US v. Julien Dilk

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999926983-2], denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999926849-2]; denying Motion to to unseal psychiatric report [999926496-2], denying Motion to to make district court transcript available [999926456-2], denying Motion to amend/correct [999928527-2]; denying Motion to accelerate case processing [999939455-2]. Originating case number: 7:93-cr-00091-GEC-RSB-1,7:16-cv-81163-GEC-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999973012]. [16-7095]

Appeal: 16-7095

Doc: 18

Filed: 11/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7095

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JULIEN K. DILKS, a/k/a Julien K. Modica, a/k/a Julian Modica,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District
Judge. (7:93-cr-00091-GEC-RSB-1; 7:16-cv-81163-GEC-RSB)

Submitted:

November 17, 2016

Decided:

November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julien K. Modica, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7095

Doc: 18

Filed: 11/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Julien K. Dilks appeals the district court’s order construing
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as a petition for a writ of
error

coram

nobis

and

dismissing

the

previously issued prefiling injunction.
record and find no reversible error.

petition

based

upon

a

We have reviewed the

Accordingly, we deny leave

to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss for the reasons stated by
the district court.

United States v. Dilks, Nos. 7:93-cr-00091-

GEC-RSB-1; 7:16-cv-81163-GEC-RSB (W.D. Va. Aug. 1, 2016).

We also

deny Dilks’ motions to make a district court transcript available
to this court, to unseal a psychiatric report, to amend/correct
his informal brief, and to accelerate case processing. 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.

DISMISSED

2