Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Thomas M. Bolick

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-1917
________________
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
THOMAS M. BOLICK,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-03990)
District Judge: Honorable Jan E. DuBois
____________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 13, 2005
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: September 20, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
In 1981, Appellant Thomas M. Bolick was convicted in Northumberland County,
Pennsylvania, of bank robbery and sentenced to a term of imprisonment (2½ to 10 years)
that has long since expired. In recent years, and despite the expiration of his sentence,

-- 1 of 2 --

Bolick also timely filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District Court1
denied by Order entered March 23, 2005. Because Bolick did not file a timely appeal or
amended notice of appeal from the March 23 Order, we lack jurisdiction to review the
denial of reconsideration, and therefore confine our review to the denial of the Notice of
Removal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).
2
Bolick has sought to challenge his conviction by seeking post-conviction review in state
court. After his last such unsuccessful attempt, Bolick filed a Notice of Removal in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking to bring his
criminal proceeding (or at least the post-conviction review proceedings) to federal court.
By order entered March 16, 2005, the District Court, inter alia, vacated the Notice
of Removal and dismissed the action with prejudice, finding a lack of federal jurisdiction
and noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1441 provides no basis for the removal of the state criminal
proceeding. Bolick timely filed this appeal.1
After a review of the record, we will affirm for the reasons stated by the District
Court. In sum, the removal notice was improper and correctly rejected. Bolick has
presented no viable argument on appeal to question the propriety of the District Court’s
judgment.

-- 2 of 2 --