BLD-008 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-1877
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
FREDERICK H. BANKS,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 2-03-cr-00245-001)
District Judge: Honorable Nora B. Fisher
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant
to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 and for a
Decision on the Issuance of a Certificate of Appealability
October 9, 2014
Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 15, 2014)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Frederick H. Banks was convicted on charges of mail fraud and criminal copyright
infringement (among others), and we affirmed. See United States v. Vampire Nation,
451 F.3d 189, 209 (3d Cir. 2006). The District Court later denied Banks’s motion
challenging his convictions and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and we denied a
certificate of appealability (“COA”). (C.A. No. 06-3671.)
Since then, and by our count, Banks has filed over sixty other motions and
petitions with the District Court, and those filings have generated at least seventeen
appeals. Some of those filings have been addressed to issues concerning the revocation
of Banks’s supervised release, the status of which is summarized in the margin.1 Most of
those filings, however, have been addressed to issues related to Banks’s underlying
convictions and sentences.
Banks has filed, for example, numerous motions and petitions arguing that the
evidence against him was fabricated and that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over
him for one reason or another. He has also filed motions and petitions seeking monetary
damages from virtually everyone involved in his criminal investigation and prosecution.
The District Court denied each of these petitions and motions, and we have summarily
affirmed and/or denied a COA in each resultant appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Banks,
372 F. App’x 237, 242 (3d Cir. 2010); United States v. Banks, 351 F. App’x 608, 610 (3d
Cir. 2009).
At issue here is a motion that Banks captioned in part as a “motion to dismiss for
1
Banks was convicted of additional charges of mail fraud in the separate proceeding at
W.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2-04-cr-00176-001. Banks was released from prison into supervised
release on May 14, 2013, but, after he continued to commit acts of fraud, the District
Court revoked his supervised release in his 2004 proceeding and sentenced him to prison,
where he remains. In the proceeding at issue here, the District Court has stated that it
2
lack of subject matter jurisdiction” and whose caption invokes mandamus and habeas
corpus as well. Banks argued that (1) “[a]ll of the evidence in this case was completely
fabricated”; (2) the Government lacked the authority under 28 U.S.C. § 547(4) to institute
his prosecution; (3) he was subject to an illegal arrest, search and seizure in violation of
the Fourth Amendment; (4) the District Court violated his equal protection rights; (5) the
indictment was procured by fraud; (6) his current detention is illegal; and (7) the District
Court’s judgment of forfeiture was unauthorized. For relief, Banks requested immediate
release from prison and damages in the amount of $5,000,000. The District Court denied
the motion on the grounds that, as it and we have explained to Banks before, the District
Court has jurisdiction over him and civil claims for monetary relief are not appropriately
asserted in this criminal action. Banks appeals.
We agree with the District Court that Banks was not entitled to relief. To the
extent that Banks’s claims seek relief from his judgment of conviction, they constitute §
2255 “claims.” Cf. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531 (2005). As we previously
advised Banks, the District Court lacks jurisdiction to consider such claims in the absence
of this Court’s authorization under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 and 2255(h) to proceed with a
second or successive § 2255 motion. See Banks, 351 F. App’x at 609 (citing United
States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 649 (3d Cir. 1999)). Banks asserts in his notice of appeal
that he never previously raised the second of the claims set forth above. We will assume
intends to schedule a supervised release violation hearing at an appropriate time. (ECF
No. 630.)
3
that Banks is correct, but the fact remains that he requires our authorization to do so now.
We decline to construe Banks’s notice of appeal as an application for such authorization
because this claim is not based on new law or new facts and thus does not satisfy the §
2244/2255(h) standard. We further note that the claim is frivolous.2 Finally, as we also
previously advised Banks, the District Court properly rejected his attempt to assert civil
claims for damages in this criminal case. See Banks, 351 F. App’x at 609.
For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. To the extent
that a COA may be required, a COA is denied.
2
The statute on which Banks relies authorizes United States Attorneys to seek the
“collection of fines, penalties, and forfeitures incurred for violation of any revenue law,”
28 U.S.C. § 547(4), and Banks argues that the prosecutor was not authorized to seek a
judgment of forfeiture in his case because he was not charged under a “revenue law.”
“Revenue laws” aside, however, the statute also confers broad authority on the United
States Attorneys to “prosecute for all offenses against the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §
547(1). Banks’s crimes were “offenses against the United States,” he was prosecuted and
convicted for those crimes, and the prosecutor was authorized to seek any remedy—
including forfeiture—authorized by law.
4