USA v. George Winkelman, No. 13-2332 (3d Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

CLD-313 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 13-2332 ___________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GEORGE A. WINKELMAN; JOHN F. WINKLEMAN, JR., Appellants ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal Nos. 01-cr-00304-008 and 01-cr-00304-009) District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 July 3, 2013 Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: July 25, 2013) _________ OPINION _________ PER CURIAM We recently discussed the background of the 2003 convictions of George Winkelman and John F. Winkelman, Jr., as well as their numerous collateral challenges to their convictions and sentences, in United States v. Winkelman, No. 13-1286, 2013 WL 2669140 (3d Cir. June 14, 2013) (nonprecedential per curiam); we need not repeat ourselves here. This appeal arises out the latest joint collateral attack of its kind. The brothers filed a petition for writ of audita querela under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Relying on our opinion in Massey v. United States, 581 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam), the District Court denied relief because, to the extent audita querela may fill the gaps of the federal postconviction regime, this case presented no such gaps. We agree; Massey plainly controls, and the appellants are entitled to no relief. Because this appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court s judgment. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 248 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam); see also 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. Should the brothers persist in filing appeals in this Court that are plainly without legal merit, they run the risk of sanctions. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.