United States v. Hayes ( 2001 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-4783
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DONALD OSCAR HAYES, a/k/a Duke,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-00-78-F)
Submitted: July 10, 2001 Decided: July 27, 2001
Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary B. Zimmerman, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. John
Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant
United States Attorney, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United
States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Donald Oscar Hayes appeals the district court order denying
his motion to dismiss the indictment because it violated his pro-
tection against double jeopardy. We review the district court’s
factual findings for clear error and the conclusions of law de
novo. United States v. Green, 139 F.3d 1002, 1004 (4th Cir. 1998).
We find that the district court did not err by finding that there
were two separate agreements to distribute marijuana in Pennsyl-
vania. See United States v. Ragins, 840 F.2d 1184, 1190 (4th Cir.
1988); United States v. MacDougall, 790 F.2d 1135, 1144-46 (4th
Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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