United States v. Fentress ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-4113
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MELVIN R. FENTRESS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR-
    02-93)
    Submitted:   June 24, 2003                 Decided:   July 24, 2003
    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David C. Wright, Stephen Z. Meehan, Joseph B. Tetrault, WRIGHT &
    MEEHAN, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio,
    United States Attorney, Lisa M. Griffin, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Melvin R. Fentress was found guilty, following a bench trial
    by a magistrate judge, for violating 
    38 C.F.R. § 1.218
    (b)(11)
    (2002).      The district court affirmed the conviction.                        On appeal to
    this court, Fentress alleges that:                    (1) § 1.218(b)(11) is merely a
    penalty      and    not    a    substantive          offense    for     which    he    can    be
    convicted;         (2)    the       regulation       is    constitutionally       void       for
    vagueness; (3) the regulation is constitutionally overbroad; and
    (4)    the   evidence          at    trial   was      insufficient       to     support      the
    conviction.         We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
    error. Regarding the first three issues, we affirm for the reasons
    stated by the district court in its memorandum affirming the
    conviction.         See United States v. Fentress, No. CR-02-93 (D. Md.
    Jan. 13, 2003). Regarding the last issue, we find that any rational
    trier of the fact could have found the essential elements of the
    crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See Glasser v. United States, 
    315 U.S. 60
    , 80 (1942) (stating review standard).
    Accordingly, we affirm Fentress’ conviction. We dispense with
    oral    argument         because      the    facts        and   legal    contentions         are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-4113

Judges: Motz, King, Gregory

Filed Date: 7/24/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024