US v. John Elinski

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999922510-2]; denying Motion for other relief [999939016-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00431-LMB-1,1:16-cv-00065-LMB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000014747]. Mailed to: John Richard Elinski. [16-7183]

Appeal: 16-7183

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/01/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7183

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN RICHARD ELINSKI,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00431-LMB-1; 1:16-cv-00065-LMB)

Submitted:

January 26, 2017

Decided:

February 1, 2017

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Richard Elinski, Appellant Pro Se.
Matthew John Gardner,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7183

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/01/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
John Richard Elinski seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) motion.

Elinski’s original § 2255 motion was dismissed

by the district court on February 5, 2016, and his motion to
amend was filed on June 2, 2016, after this court had dismissed
the appeal of the original motion.

Because Elinski’s § 2255

motion was no longer pending before the district court, we find
no error by the district court in denying Elinski’s motion to
amend.

See United States v. Craycraft, 167 F.3d 451, 457 n.6

(8th Cir. 1999) (noting that the civil rules apply to § 2255
actions and that motions to amend are reviewed under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15 for an abuse of discretion).

Accordingly, we deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Elinski’s motion to
submit evidence in support of appeal and expand the record, deny
a

certificate

dispense

of

with

contentions

are

appealability,

oral

argument

adequately

and

dismiss

because

presented

in

the
the

the

appeal.

We

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2