United States v. Craft , 302 F. App'x 123 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-11-2008
USA v. Craft
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-3150
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Craft" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 121.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/121
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.
HLD-14 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-3150
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
ERIC CRAFT,
Appellant
__________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(M.D. Pa. No. 02-cr-00011-1)
District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant
to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
November 26, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: December 11, 2008 )
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellant Eric Craft pleaded guilty in September 2002 to a superseding
1
information, alleging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) for causing the death of another by
use of a gun during a crime of violence or drug-trafficking offense. The government
agreed to drop all other charges. In May 2003, he was sentenced in United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to a term of imprisonment of 480 months,
to be followed by five years of supervised release. We affirmed in United States v. Craft,
139 Fed. Appx. 372, 374-75 (3d Cir. 2005).1 In December 2006, the District Court
denied Craft’s timely filed motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We denied
his request for a certificate of appealability in July 2007 in United States v. Craft, No. 07-
1060 (3d Cir. July 30, 2007).2
In October 2007, Craft filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad
subjiciendum, the common-law equivalent of a section 2255 motion, which the District
Court denied on October 23, 2007. In November 2007, he filed a second ad subjiciendum
petition, which the District Court denied on November 13, 2007. In December 2007,
Craft filed a Rule 60(b) motion to void the criminal judgment based on fraud upon the
court, which the District Court denied on February 11, 2008. Since that date, Craft has
1
Craft argued on direct appeal that the government breached the plea agreement
because he had agreed to plead guilty only to manslaughter under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(2).
We rejected the claim as meritless on the ground that the superceding information
charged Craft with murder, and the plea colloquy clearly indicated that he was pleading
guilty to murder, not manslaughter.
2
Craft alleged in his section 2255 motion that his guilty plea was involuntary, trial
counsel was ineffective at sentencing, and the District Court improperly departed upward
from the Guidelines without giving him advance notice. After holding a hearing, the
District Court rejected these arguments.
2
filed several motions seeking to void the criminal judgment, all of which were denied by
the District Court.
At issue in the instant appeal, on June 16, 2008, Craft filed an item titled
“Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Court to Assign Hearing for Court to
Prove Jurisdiction/Venue,” seeking a hearing on the federal courts’ jurisdiction over his
criminal case. In an order entered on June 17, 2008, the District Court denied the motion.
Craft timely appeals.
Our Clerk notified Craft by letter that this appeal was subject to summary
disposition under Third Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. He was invited to submit
argument in writing, but he has not done so.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.3 Under Third Circuit LAR
27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, we may summarily dispose of an appeal when it clearly appears that
no substantial question is presented by the appeal.
We will summarily affirm the order of the District Court denying the
motion for a hearing on jurisdiction and venue. In view of his history of direct and
collateral challenges to his criminal judgment, the District Court correctly denied Craft a
hearing on his “foreign sovereign immunity” jurisdictional argument. It clearly appears
that no substantial question is presented by this appeal.
3
We will treat this as a final and appealable post-judgment order. See Isidor
Paiewonsky, Inc. v. Sharp Properties, Inc., 998 F.2d 145 (3d Cir. 1993); Plymouth Mut.
Life Ins. Co. v. Illinois Mid-Continent Life Ins. Co., 378 F.2d 389, 391 (3d Cir. 1967).
3
For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the order of the
District Court, denying Craft’s motion for a hearing on jurisdiction and venue.
4