United States v. Eric Craft , 471 F. App'x 89 ( 2012 )

CLD-127 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-1098
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ERIC CRAFT,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 02-cr-00011-011)
District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 1, 2012
Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 26, 2012)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Eric Craft appeals the District Court’s order denying his motions to dismiss the
superseding information. For the reasons below, we will summarily affirm the District
Court’s order.
In September 2002, Craft pleaded guilty in the District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania to a superseding information charging him with causing the
death of a person through the use of a firearm during a crime of violence or a drug
trafficking offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(j). Craft was sentenced to 480 months in
prison. We affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. See United States v. Craft, 139 F.
App’x 372 (3d Cir. 2005). In December 2006, the District Court denied Craft’s timely
motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We subsequently denied Craft’s
request for a certificate of appealability.
Since then, Craft has filed several unsuccessful motions challenging the District
Court’s jurisdiction over his criminal case. In September 2011, Craft filed two more
motions challenging the District Court’s jurisdiction in his criminal case. The District
Court denied the motions, and Craft filed a notice of appeal.
Craft argued in his motions that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over his
criminal case because the information failed to plead a substantial effect on interstate
commerce. He also argued that the District Court failed to prove that the killing was
connected to a drug-trafficking offense. The District Court was correct that Craft cannot
challenge his criminal information by using Fed. R. Crim. P 12(b)(3)(B) because his case
is no longer “pending.” Moreover, given Craft’s guilty plea, the government was not
required to prove that the murder was connected to a drug-trafficking offense.
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the
appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, we will summarily affirm
2
the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6. We warn Craft that continuing
to file frivolous motions may result in sanctions and filing restrictions.
3