US v. Daniel Buczek

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000008411-2] Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00027-RLV-DCK-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000087890].. [16-7639]

Appeal: 16-7639

Doc: 17

Filed: 05/25/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7639

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL R. BUCZEK,
Claimant - Appellant,
and
BERNARD VON NOTHAUS,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00027-RLV-DCK-1)

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel R. Buczek, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Bain-Creed, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Appeal: 16-7639

Doc: 17

Filed: 05/25/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-7639

Doc: 17

Filed: 05/25/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

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.

3