United States v. Martin Jones

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1089
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARTIN JONES, a/k/a Martin J. Del Rosareo, a/k/a Martin
Jones Del Rosario, a/k/a Roberto Jones, a/k/a Martin King,
a/k/a Martin J. Rosaro, a/k/a Martin Delrosareo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.
(8:12-cv-01325-JFM)
Submitted: June 10, 2013 Decided: July 5, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aaron R. Caruso, ABOD & CARUSO, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for
Appellant. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
J. Max Weintraub, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jessica A. Dawgert,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Martin Jones appeals the district court’s orders
granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment and
revoking his naturalization and certificate of naturalization.
We affirm.
We review a district court’s order granting summary
judgment de novo, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
PBM Prods., LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co., 639 F.3d 111, 119 (4th
Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a). “Only disputes over facts that might affect the
outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly
preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). To withstand a motion
for summary judgment, the non-moving party must produce
competent evidence to reveal the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact for trial. See Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power
Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) (“Conclusory or
speculative allegations do not suffice, nor does a mere
scintilla of evidence in support of [the non-moving party’s]
case.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
2
We note that it is undisputed that Jones was not
eligible to be naturalized because he had two controlled
substance offenses which disqualified him from naturalization.
See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(3), 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) (2006).
We conclude that Jones failed to show that there was
an agreement whereby he would plead guilty and assist the
Government in exchange for a promise that the Government would
not seek to revoke the certificate of naturalization. Jones
only asserts that the Government agreed not take any action
against his immigration status, which at the time he allegedly
entered the agreement was that of a lawful permanent resident.
We also note that Jones did not request additional
time to gather evidence that would support his claim that there
was an agreement that would permit him to become naturalized
without interference from the Government. We further note that
Jones’ claim that the Government waited too long to seek to have
his citizenship revoked is without merit. “As a general rule
laches or neglect of duty on the part of officers of the
Government is no defense to a suit by it to enforce a public
right or protect a public interest[.]” INS v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5,
8 (1973) (internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, Jones
did not show that he was prejudiced by the Government’s decision
to file the complaint twenty years after he took the oath of
citizenship. See Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 282
3
(1961) (assuming the defense of laches could be asserted in the
denaturalization process, the petitioner must show he was
prejudiced by the delay).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4