United States v. Boniella , 297 F. App'x 161 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-21-2008
USA v. Boniella
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3948
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Boniella" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 342.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/342
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
CLD-295 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-3948
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DAVID ALBERT BONIELLA,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 95-CR-00142)
District Judge: Honorable Alan N. Bloch
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
September 18, 2008
Before: AMBRO, FUENTES AND JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: October 21, 2008)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
David Albert Boniella appeals from an order of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania, which denied his “Petition for Sealing of
Conviction by Court Discretion.” In his petition, Boniella sought “sealing” of his
criminal conviction, noting that the matter had been “satisfied in 1999” and that the
conviction made it “almost impossible to secure substantial and stable employment for
life.” The District Court denied the petition, and Boniella timely appealed.
In his notice of appeal and argument regarding possible summary action, Boniella
asks that we remand the action to the District Court and order it to seal his conviction, or
that we take action to either seal the conviction or set aside his conviction and restore his
civil rights.
We have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the final order of the District
Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. However, neither this Court nor the District Court has
jurisdiction to seal or expunge a conviction where there is no challenge to the validity of
the conviction or arrest. United States v. Rowlands, 451 F.3d 173, 178 (3d Cir.), cert.
denied, 127 S. Ct. 598 (2006).1 We do not have jurisdiction to consider an expungement
on the basis that a defendant is having difficulty in finding or retaining employment. Id.We therefore will affirm the District Court’s order.
1
Although Boniella uses the term “seal,” he essentially seeks expungement.
“Although different states may define expungement’ differently, ‘in general when a
defendant moves to expunge records, she asks that the court destroy or seal the records of
the fact of the defendant's conviction and not the conviction itself.’” Rowlands, 451 F.3d
at 176 (quoting United States v. Crowell, 374 F.3d 790, 792 (9th Cir.2004)).
2